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 mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects budget data, or what happens to associated transfers (hinted by the parameter). The HTTP method 'DELETE' is noted but not 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 (one sentence plus bracketed text and HTTP endpoint). While not verbose, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The endpoint detail is technical noise that doesn't aid the agent. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the outcome, error conditions, or system behavior. The context signals show 2 parameters, but the description fails to integrate their significance (e.g., the boolean parameter's default and implications).

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. However, with 2 parameters and high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't detract, so a 4 is appropriate as it doesn't create confusion.

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 budget lock' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the resource ('budget lock') but lacks specificity about what a budget lock is or what deletion entails. The bracketed text '[Construction Financials/Budget]' provides some domain context but doesn't clarify the action's purpose or impact.

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 (e.g., whether a lock must exist), consequences of deletion, or related tools (like 'create_a_budget_lock' from the sibling list). The agent is left with no usage context.

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