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 a compliance document' which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence stating the action, but it includes extraneous API path details ('[Construction Financials/Commitments] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/work_order_contracts/{contract_id}/compliance_documents/{id}') that do not aid an AI agent. This reduces efficiency, though the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what happens upon deletion (e.g., permanent removal, confirmation), error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 all three parameters (project_id, contract_id, id) well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema provides sufficient detail, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the resource ('a compliance document'), making the purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_a_compliance_document_project_v1_0', but the verb and resource are specific enough for basic clarity.

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 'delete_a_compliance_document_project_v1_0' or other deletion tools in the sibling list. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage mentioned.

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