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', implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling, or side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious action, failing to provide necessary context for safe invocation.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that states the action. However, it includes extraneous API path details ('[Project Management/Inspections] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/schedules/{schedule_id}/attachments/{id}') which are not useful for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on success/error responses, confirmation prompts, or impact on related data, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 Checklist Schedule Attachment' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the verb 'Delete' and resource 'Checklist Schedule Attachment', but lacks specificity about what an attachment entails (e.g., file, document) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_an_inspection_item_attachment' or 'delete_checklist_inspections_item_attachment', leaving ambiguity.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing attachment IDs), exclusions, or sibling tools for comparison, such as other deletion tools in the list. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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