Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete a classification' but does not mention if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions (e.g., 'Company Admin/Company Settings' hint in the description), or has side effects. The inclusion of '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' and the HTTP method 'DELETE' in the description adds some context about required roles and the destructive nature, but it's not explicitly explained, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 core action ('Delete a classification'), followed by additional technical details in brackets. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of API endpoint details might be slightly extraneous for an agent's understanding.

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 complexity of a deletion operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, irreversibility, error handling, or what happens upon success/failure. The '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hint is not fully explained, and the agent is left without sufficient context 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('Unique identifier for the project' and 'Id of the classification'). The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a classification'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_classification' or 'delete_a_classification' (if they exist in the list), though the sibling list shows 'delete_classification' as a separate tool, suggesting potential redundancy without explicit distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other deletion tools or methods. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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