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' but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which adds technical context without unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the destructive nature upfront.

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 incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like confirmation requirements, error handling, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., whether the response is permanently removed or moved to a recycle bin). This leaves the agent with insufficient information for safe invocation.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in the input schema (project_id, rfi_id, id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an RFI Response'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on deletion of RFI responses, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations like 'delete_rfi' or 'delete_rfi_reply' in the sibling list.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or when deletion is appropriate compared to other operations like updating or archiving. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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