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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if the deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. The API path hint adds minimal behavioral context, leaving critical gaps for a destructive operation.

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 sentence with the tool name and API path. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though the tautological name repetition reduces value. The structure is efficient, but the content is under-specified rather than concise.

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 doesn't explain what an 'Action Plan Template Receiver' is, the consequences of deletion, success/failure responses, or error conditions. The API path provides some domain context ([Project Management/Action Plans]), but overall completeness is poor for a mutation tool.

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 ('Unique identifier for the project', 'Action Plan Template Receiver ID'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. With high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Receiver' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools (e.g., delete_action_plan_template_approver, delete_action_plan_test_record). The API path hint provides some context but doesn't compensate for the tautological description.

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 template receiver), exclusions, or related sibling tools (like bulk_destroy_action_plan_template_receivers). The agent receives zero usage context beyond the tool name.

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