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 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, triggers notifications, or has side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a destructive operation.

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 very concise—a single sentence that states the action and resource. It's front-loaded with the key information. However, it includes an API endpoint path which is redundant for an AI agent and could be considered clutter, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, permissions), error conditions, or what to expect upon success. For a tool that deletes resources, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (company_id and id) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the relationship between the parameters or their significance in the deletion context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('Company Action Plan Templates'), which is clear. However, it's somewhat vague about what exactly is being deleted (a specific template identified by ID) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools beyond the name. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with minimal additional context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions), what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversibility), or when not to use it. The sibling list includes many deletion tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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