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 operation, but doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related data), or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 brief purpose statement and the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. However, the inclusion of the full endpoint path adds some noise but is not excessive. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be more structured.

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 is a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the consequences of deletion, success/error responses, or required permissions. For a destructive tool, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making it inadequate for safe 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: 'Checklist ID', 'Signature Request ID', and 'Unique identifier for the project.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 Signature Request' with a category hint '[Project Management/Inspections]' and the HTTP method 'DELETE'. This is clear but lacks specificity about what a 'Checklist Signature Request' is and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_checklist_signature' or 'deletes_an_inspection_item_signature_request_v2_0'). It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague.

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, conditions for deletion, or what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversible action). Without annotations, the agent has no context on usage scenarios or exclusions.

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