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 states 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but does not clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting financial records). The API endpoint hint suggests it's a REST DELETE operation, but no further behavioral context is given.

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 a single, direct sentence that states the purpose efficiently, followed by the API endpoint for context. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no wasted words. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint, while informative, could be considered slightly extraneous for an agent-focused description.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical information such as confirmation of success/failure, error handling, permissions required, or impact on related data. For a destructive tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 Direct Cost Line Item'), which is specific and unambiguous. It also includes the API endpoint path, reinforcing the context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_direct_cost_item' or 'delete_direct_cost_line_items', which might be similar but operate at different resource levels.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools for creating or listing direct cost line items. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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