Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but fails to specify permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or any side effects (e.g., impact on related records). The HTTP method 'DELETE' is mentioned, but this is redundant with the tool name and adds no behavioral insight beyond the obvious.

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 a single run-on sentence that combines a tautological statement with an HTTP endpoint, lacking front-loaded clarity. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and the endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_item_assignees/{plan_item_assignee_id}/signature' is verbose and does not aid the agent in understanding tool behavior, making it inefficiently structured.

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 (implied by 'Delete'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like success/error responses, confirmation requirements, or system impacts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in contextual understanding for safe and effective use.

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 both parameters ('project_id' and 'plan_item_assignee_id'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the inputs.

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 Item Assignee Signature' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the resource ('Action Plan Item Assignee Signature') but lacks a clear, distinct verb beyond 'Delete' and does not differentiate from sibling tools, such as 'delete_action_plan_item_assignee' or 'delete_action_plan_approver_signature', leaving the agent uncertain about its specific 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or related tools (e.g., 'create_action_plan_item_assignee_signature'), leaving the agent with no usage context. This absence of guidance is particularly problematic given the many sibling delete tools in the list.

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