Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of items). The HTTP method 'DELETE' is noted, but no behavioral context like confirmation prompts or error conditions is included.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological title, a category tag, and an HTTP endpoint. While not verbose, it lacks essential explanatory content, making it inefficient in conveying necessary information. The structure is front-loaded but incomplete.

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 insufficient. It fails to address critical aspects: whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, if there are confirmation steps, or what the response contains. For a delete operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 parameter descriptions: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Action Plan ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing description supplementation.

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 Action Plan' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what an 'Action Plan' is or distinguish this tool from sibling delete operations (e.g., delete_action_plan_item, delete_action_plan_section). The category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' provides minimal context but does not define the resource or scope.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific project or action plan ID), consequences of deletion, or related tools like 'delete_action_plan_item' or 'restore_recycled_action_plan'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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