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 mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The mention of '[Construction Financials/Change Events]' hints at a domain but adds no operational context. This is inadequate for a destructive tool.

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 concise—two short sentences with no fluff. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but the API path detail adds little value for an AI agent. It earns a 4 for brevity 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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects: what a Change Event is, deletion implications, success/error responses, or domain-specific constraints. The API path hint doesn't compensate for these omissions.

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 parameters 'id' and 'project_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., Change Event ID) or how 'project_id' relates. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Change Event'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'Change Event' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_change_event_production_quantity, delete_change_event_v1_1 appears as a sibling but might be a version variant). It provides minimal context 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or when not to use it. With many sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_change_event_production_quantity, delete_change_event_v1_1), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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