Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't mention whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It also lacks information about response format or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - just two brief sentences that state the core purpose and provide API endpoint context. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint string adds some technical detail that might not be essential for an AI 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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'delete' means in this context (permanent? reversible?), what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or what the response contains. The agent lacks critical context needed to use this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 drawing area'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact resource type (drawing area) rather than being generic. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar deletion tools in the sibling list (like 'delete_a_drawing_area_v1_1'), which prevents a perfect score.

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. There are multiple sibling deletion tools (including 'delete_a_drawing_area_v1_1'), but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context about appropriate use cases. The minimal description fails to help an agent choose between similar tools.

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