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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive action ('Destroy') and bulk operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletions are permanent or reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The HTTP method 'DELETE' hints at mutation but doesn't fully describe behavioral traits.

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 with two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and category, and another providing the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the second sentence is more technical than user-friendly. There's minimal waste, but it could be more structured for clarity.

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 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain critical aspects like what 'Receivers' are, the impact of the operation, expected response format, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (project_id, plan_template_id, ids) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters, such as format examples for 'ids' or relationships between them, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 states the action ('Bulk Destroy') and resource ('Action Plan Template Receivers'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'bulk_destroy_action_plan_template_approvers' or 'bulk_destroy_actual_production_quantities', leaving ambiguity about what specifically is being destroyed.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and an HTTP method 'DELETE', but these don't offer explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'delete_action_plan_template_receiver' for single deletions.

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