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. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions. The HTTP method 'DELETE' is noted, but this is technical rather than behavioral guidance.

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, efficient sentence that states the purpose upfront. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which is slightly technical but not wasteful. It could be more concise by omitting the endpoint details, but overall it's well-structured.

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 delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as confirmation of permanent deletion, authorization needs, error handling, or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 (prime_contract_id, id, project_id) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), the resource ('a Prime Contract line item'), and provides context with the category '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts]'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact resource type, unlike generic delete tools in the list.

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, or sibling tools for similar operations (e.g., 'delete_prime_contract_line_item_v2_0' in the list).

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