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 the action is a deletion but does not mention whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence followed by an API path. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. The API path adds technical context without redundancy.

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 deletion, error handling, return values, or impact on related data. For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent with insufficient information.

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 company_id, project_id, and id. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between IDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 task item comment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_a_task' or 'delete_a_task_item', which are similar deletion operations on related resources.

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, such as other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_task', 'destroy_task_item'). It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this specific deletion is appropriate.

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