Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate that this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, or what happens to associated data (like subcategories). The URL path includes 'DELETE' which hints at mutation, but this isn't explained in the description text.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, the description is severely under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The bracketed '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' and URL path appear to be metadata rather than helpful description content. A truly concise description would front-load essential context about what's being deleted and why.

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 completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Category' is in this context, what the deletion entails, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The agent would be operating blindly when invoking this potentially destructive operation.

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 the three required parameters (company_id, project_id, category_id). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 Category' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing any meaningful context. It lacks specificity about what resource is being deleted (e.g., a project category in workforce planning) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_subcategory' or 'delete_a_classification'. The URL path hint suggests it's for workforce planning categories, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or relationships with sibling tools (e.g., 'add_category_to_project', 'delete_subcategory'). An agent would have no context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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