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 operation, but does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., permanence, data loss, permissions required, or side effects). For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 Payment Application (Owner Invoice)'). The additional context ('[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts] DELETE /rest/v1.0/payment_applications/{id}') is relevant but could be slightly verbose. Overall, it avoids unnecessary words and efficiently conveys key information in a single sentence.

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, the description is incomplete. It lacks output schema, annotations, and details on behavioral impact (e.g., confirmation, error handling, or return values). While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not address the tool's effects or usage context sufficiently, leaving gaps for the agent to operate safely.

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 ('id' and 'project_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or relationships). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 Payment Application (Owner Invoice)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It also includes the domain context '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts]' and the API endpoint, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_requisition_subcontractor_invoice'), 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. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., other deletion tools in the list). The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and context, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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