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' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The API endpoint hints at a REST DELETE operation, but no behavioral traits like idempotency, error conditions, or confirmation are described.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a Resource Request'). The additional API endpoint is concise but could be considered extraneous for an agent. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it lacks structured guidance. Every sentence (though minimal) serves a purpose, but the overall content is sparse.

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's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context: what a resource request is, the impact of deletion, permissions needed, or what is returned (e.g., success confirmation or error). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for 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 request_id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it does not explain the relationship between these IDs or provide usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is added.

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 'Delete a Resource Request' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds a category tag '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' and an API endpoint, but does not specify what a 'Resource Request' is, what gets deleted, or the consequences. It distinguishes from siblings only by the resource type, not by clarifying its unique function among many delete operations.

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 an existing resource request), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversible action). With many sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_a_budget_change, delete_a_person), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific one.

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