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 only states the action ('Delete') without explaining if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects related data. The description fails to address critical behavioral aspects like destructiveness, side effects, or error conditions, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 first sentence is redundant with the name. The second sentence adds technical context (API path) which is useful but not front-loaded with human-readable guidance. While efficient, it lacks a clear structure that prioritizes essential usage information over technical details.

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 severely incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon deletion, return values, error handling, or permissions required. For a deletion tool in a project management context, this leaves critical gaps that could lead to misuse or incorrect assumptions by an 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions ('project_id' and 'id'). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high and there are only two parameters, the baseline is 3. The description's inclusion of the API path ('DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_sections/{id}') implicitly reinforces parameter usage, slightly enhancing clarity, warranting a score of 4.

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 Section' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the resource ('Action Plan Section') and verb ('Delete'), but fails to specify what an 'Action Plan Section' is or how deletion impacts the system. No differentiation from sibling tools is provided, leaving the purpose vague.

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, consequences, or any context for deletion. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_action_plan', 'delete_action_plan_item'), the lack of differentiation makes it impossible for an agent to choose correctly without external knowledge.

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