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,' implying a destructive mutation, but does not clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The inclusion of the API path '[Project Management/Action Plans] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_template_approvers/{id}' adds technical context but does not explain behavioral traits like error conditions or response format.

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 parts: a tautological statement and an API path. It is front-loaded with the core action, and the API path provides additional technical context without unnecessary elaboration. However, the tautology slightly reduces efficiency, as the first part could be more informative.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to address critical aspects like what happens upon deletion (e.g., is it soft/hard delete?), error handling, permissions required, or the structure of any response. The API path hints at the resource hierarchy but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and output details.

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' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Action Plan Template Approver ID.' The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Template Approver' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('Action Plan Template Approver'), but lacks any additional context about what this resource represents or the scope of the deletion. While it distinguishes from siblings by naming a unique resource, it does so minimally without clarifying the action's intent or effect.

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 for deletion, or any sibling tools that might be related (e.g., 'bulk_destroy_action_plan_template_approvers' or 'delete_action_plan_template_receiver'). Without such context, an agent cannot make an informed decision about its application.

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