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 doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The HTTP method 'DELETE' is noted, but no additional behavioral context is given.

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 Bid Board project'). The additional context '[Preconstruction/Bid Board]' and API endpoint details are brief and relevant, though the endpoint string could be considered slightly verbose. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical aspects like confirmation prompts, error handling, success responses, or implications of deletion. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral and outcome information is needed.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema (bid_board_project_id, company_id). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Bid Board project'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the specificity of 'Bid Board project' helps distinguish it from other deletion tools in the list (e.g., delete_a_single_project).

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 includes a context tag '[Preconstruction/Bid Board]' which hints at the domain, but offers no explicit usage rules, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'clone_bid_board_project_v2_0' or 'get_bid_board_project_by_id_v2_0'.

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