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' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of members). The API path hint suggests it's a DELETE operation, but the description lacks explicit warnings about data loss, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tautological name, then adds bracketed categories and an API path that clutter without adding actionable guidance. While concise in word count, it wastes space on low-value elements instead of providing clear, front-loaded instructions. It could be more effectively structured with a purpose-first approach.

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 (destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context: what happens upon deletion (success response, error cases), whether it's idempotent, permission requirements, or typical workflows. For a mutation tool with significant impact, this leaves the agent underinformed about risks and outcomes.

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 (company_id, group_id) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the relationship between company and group, or provide examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description misses an opportunity to add context.

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 Single Group' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the verb (Delete) and resource (Group) but lacks specificity about what a 'Group' is in this context (e.g., workforce planning group) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_group' or 'delete_a_single_project'. The bracketed text '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' and API path provide some context but are not integrated into a clear purpose statement.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify the group first), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., if the group has dependencies). With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., delete_group, delete_a_single_project), the absence of differentiation leaves the agent without usage context.

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