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. It states 'DELETE' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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—two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and includes technical details (HTTP method/endpoint). However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical context.

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, no output schema, and lack of behavioral details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a verification method is, the impact of deletion, or return values. For a delete operation, this leaves critical gaps.

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 (company_id and id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Delete Action Plan Verification Method' and includes a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and the HTTP method/endpoint. This clarifies the verb (delete) and resource (action plan verification method), but it's somewhat vague about what a 'verification method' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name. It's not tautological but lacks specificity beyond the name.

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, conditions for deletion, or what happens after deletion. Given the many sibling tools (including other delete operations), the absence of usage context is a significant gap.

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