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 'Delete' but does not clarify if this is a soft/hard delete, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting plan receiver status). The API path hints at a destructive operation, but without annotations like 'destructiveHint', the description lacks critical safety and operational context needed for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core action and resource in the first phrase. The API path provides technical context without unnecessary elaboration. However, the inclusion of the full API path might be slightly verbose for an agent-focused description, though it does not significantly hinder readability.

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 complexity (a delete operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error handling), return values, or confirmation of deletion. Without annotations or output schema, the agent is left guessing about the operation's outcome and potential risks, making this inadequate for safe invocation.

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 'plan_receiver_id' as 'Action Plan Receiver ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 the resource ('Action Plan Receiver Signature'), which matches the tool name. It provides specific context with the API path '[Project Management/Action Plans] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_receivers/{plan_receiver_id}/signature', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_action_plan_approver_signature' or 'delete_action_plan_item_assignee_signature', which are similar deletion operations on different signature types.

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 (e.g., whether the signature must exist or be in a specific state), exclusions, or related tools for creating or viewing signatures. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and API path alone, which is insufficient for informed decision-making.

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