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 mentions 'DELETE' in the endpoint, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a destructive tool.

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 Response.'). The additional context ('Project Management/Inspections') and API endpoint are relevant but could be structured better. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from more structured guidance.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error handling, or return values. For a delete tool, this lack of context is significant, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it 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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('company_id' and 'id'). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format, constraints, or relationships. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from 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 Response'), providing specific verb+resource. It includes context ('Project Management/Inspections') and the API endpoint, which helps distinguish it from generic delete operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools like 'delete_a_response_from_an_item_response_set' or other response-related deletions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or when this deletion is appropriate compared to other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_a_response_from_an_item_response_set'). It only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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