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 mentions 'DELETE' implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related inspections). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 with two sentences: one stating the action and resource, and another providing the HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the endpoint detail could be considered redundant if the agent already has structured API data.

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, no output schema, and a destructive operation, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like what happens post-deletion, error conditions, or confirmation requirements, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool 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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the two required parameters, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool's purpose as 'Delete Checklist Schedule' with a category tag [Project Management/Inspections] and the HTTP method DELETE, which clarifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_a_checklist_inspection_schedule' or 'delete_checklist_schedule_attachment', leaving ambiguity about scope and distinctions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing schedule, or exclusions, like not being reversible. Without this, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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