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' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not clarify if deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, triggers side effects (e.g., notifications), or has permission requirements. The HTTP method (DELETE) hints at destructiveness, but explicit behavioral details are missing, leaving significant gaps 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 with the core action ('Delete Action Plan Test Record'). The additional HTTP path information is compact. However, the category label '[Project Management/Action Plans]' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the description could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from 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?

For a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context: what a 'test record' is, the impact of deletion (e.g., data loss, audit trail), required permissions, error conditions, or response format. The HTTP path provides some context, 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: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Action Plan Test Record ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Given the high 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 Test Record' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds a category label '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and the HTTP method/path 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_test_records/{id}', but does not explain what an 'Action Plan Test Record' is or what deletion entails. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling delete tools (e.g., 'delete_action_plan_test_record_request').

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), consequences of deletion (e.g., irreversibility), or relationships to other tools (e.g., whether a test record must be in a certain state before deletion). With many sibling delete tools, this lack of differentiation is problematic.

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