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' which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The API endpoint hint adds minimal context.

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 one sentence plus an API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could be more structured by separating usage guidance from the purpose. No wasted words, though it risks under-specification.

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 is a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context like irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to associated data, leaving significant gaps for safe agent 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 both parameters ('id' and 'project_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter meanings.

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 BIM Model Revision Plan' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It specifies the resource (BIM Model Revision Plan) and verb (Delete) but lacks specificity about scope or effect, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_bim_model_revision' or 'delete_bim_plan'.

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, prerequisites, or consequences. It includes a context tag '[Preconstruction/BIM]' and API endpoint, but these do not inform usage decisions relative to other deletion tools in the sibling list.

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