Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Delete Checklist Signature' and includes an API endpoint, implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is irreversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data, or what happens on success/failure. The endpoint suggests it deletes a signature within a specific signature request, but this is not explicitly clarified, leaving significant gaps.

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 parts: a tautological statement and an API endpoint. It is front-loaded but under-specified, as the first part adds little value. However, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and efficiently includes the endpoint, which could aid in understanding the context. It earns a 4 for brevity, though it 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 the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Delete'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the outcome, error conditions, or side effects. The API endpoint provides some context but does not suffice for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage. The agent lacks necessary information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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: 'list_id' (Checklist ID), 'signature_request_id' (Checklist Signature Request ID), and 'project_id' (Unique identifier for the project). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides adequate documentation. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not compensate or add value.

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 Signature' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and API endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{list_id}/signature_requests/{signature_request_id}/signature', but these do not explain what the tool actually does—whether it deletes a signature from a request, cancels a request, or removes a signed document. The purpose remains vague beyond the literal 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes tools like 'delete_checklist_signature_request' and 'delete_signature_project', but the description does not differentiate this tool from those or specify prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts. Usage is entirely implicit, leaving the agent without direction.

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