Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Bulk Destroy' and includes 'DELETE' in the endpoint, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical context without unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more structured by separating functional description from technical details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive bulk operation with 3 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like error handling, response format, or confirmation requirements. The lack of behavioral and usage context makes it inadequate for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (project_id, plan_template_id, ids). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It doesn't explain the format of 'ids' (e.g., numeric IDs) or relationships between parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Bulk Destroy') and resource ('Action Plan Template Approvers'), making the purpose specific. It includes the API endpoint path, which reinforces the operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_destroy_action_plan_template_receivers' or 'delete_action_plan_template_approver', leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing specific permissions or when bulk deletion is appropriate compared to single deletions. It doesn't mention any sibling tools or scenarios for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.