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 Person', implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or error handling. The HTTP method (DELETE) hints at destructiveness, but explicit guidance is missing.

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 two parts: 'Delete a Person' and a bracketed category with HTTP endpoint. However, the structure is not front-loaded with critical information; the endpoint details may clutter the core purpose. It's efficient but could be more streamlined by omitting the endpoint or integrating it better.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral impact, success/error responses, and safety considerations. The schema covers parameters well, but for a delete operation, more context is needed to ensure correct and safe usage by an agent.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (company_id and person_id), including formats and recommendations. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description does not detract, so a score of 4 reflects that the schema adequately compensates, though the description could have added context like parameter relationships.

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 'Delete a Person', which is a clear verb+resource combination, indicating it removes a person record. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_a_single_person' (if that exists) or other deletion tools, and the bracketed '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' adds some context but is vague. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about scope or system.

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., permissions), consequences, or sibling tools like 'create_a_person' or 'update_a_person'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for safe operation.

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