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' but does not disclose if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, triggers cascading effects, or has rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic verb.

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 overly concise to the point of being under-specified. 'Delete a Single Project' is insufficient for a destructive operation. The inclusion of the resource path in brackets adds technical detail but does not improve clarity for an AI agent. It wastes no words but fails to convey necessary information.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what deletion entails, what permissions are needed, whether it's reversible, or what the response contains. Given the high stakes of a delete operation, this lack of context is critical.

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 and project_id) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, but with only 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description's lack of param details is not penalized heavily.

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 Project' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds no specificity about what 'delete' entails (permanent removal, soft delete, etc.) or what a 'project' resource is in this context. While it includes a resource path, this is structural rather than clarifying purpose. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_project' or 'bulk_delete_projects'.

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., required permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or sibling tools (e.g., bulk delete operations). The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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