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. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The URL suggests it's a legacy API endpoint, but this isn't explained. Minimal 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The URL fragment adds technical detail without unnecessary elaboration. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a destructive tool. It doesn't explain what a 'Calendar Item' is, the consequences of deletion, error conditions, or return values. The legacy tag hints at complexity but isn't elaborated, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Calendar Item ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 Calendar Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('Calendar Item') but lacks details about scope or context. The URL fragment '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/calendar_items/{id}' provides technical context but doesn't clarify purpose beyond the name.

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, permissions, or sibling tools like 'create_calendar_item' or 'update_calendar_item' for context. The agent receives no usage instructions.

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