Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The API path hints at hierarchy but isn't explained.

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 extremely concise with only two parts: the action and an API path. It's front-loaded with the purpose, but the API path adds technical detail without clear value for an agent. No wasted sentences, though it could be more informative.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation, return values, errors), prerequisites, or impact on related data. For a 3-parameter mutation tool, more context 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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema adequately documents 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 Bid Form' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('Bid Form'), but it's minimal and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_bid_form_item' or 'delete_bid_form_section'. It lacks specificity about what exactly gets deleted (e.g., the entire form vs. parts).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_bid_form_item' or 'delete_bid_form_section'. The description includes a category '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and API path, but these don't provide actionable usage instructions or exclusions for the agent.

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