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' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether this is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. The HTTP method (DELETE) is mentioned, but this is technical rather than behavioral guidance. More context on consequences and constraints is needed.

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 with two sentences, but the second sentence is a technical endpoint path that adds little value for an AI agent. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, but overall the description could be more focused on user guidance rather than API details. It's not wasteful but could be more helpful.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., success response, error conditions), whether the action is audited, or if there are side effects. For a delete tool, more behavioral context is necessary for safe and correct usage.

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 ('project_id' and 'id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. However, since the schema fully covers the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('Action Plan Item Assignee'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a specific assignee deletion rather than bulk operations or other assignee-related actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar delete tools like 'delete_action_plan_item_assignee_signature' or 'bulk_delete_action_plan_item_assignees'.

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 an existing assignee), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_action_plan_item_assignees' for multiple deletions or 'delete_action_plan_item_assignee_signature' for signature removal. 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.