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 tool performs a deletion, implying a destructive operation, but does not specify if this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting approval status). This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's action and resource. However, it includes an API endpoint path ('DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_approvers/{plan_approver_id}/signature') which is redundant for an AI agent and could be omitted for better conciseness.

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 that this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover important aspects like what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling), potential impacts on related entities, or required user permissions, leaving the agent with incomplete contextual 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('project_id' and 'plan_approver_id'). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Action Plan Approver Signature'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_action_plan_approver' or 'delete_action_plan_item_assignee_signature', leaving ambiguity about the specific scope of this deletion operation.

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, such as whether the signature must exist or be in a specific state, and does not mention any sibling tools for comparison, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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