Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete Classification' and includes an HTTP method (DELETE), implying a destructive operation, but does not specify irreversible effects, required permissions, or error conditions. The mention of '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hints at access control but is vague. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tautological 'Delete Classification' and appends technical details (role, HTTP path) that are not well-integrated. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information clearly, making it less helpful than a more informative concise description would be.

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, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Classification' is, the consequences of deletion, success/error responses, or required authorization. For a 2-parameter mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate 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 ('Unique identifier for the company', 'Id of the Classification'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately documents the inputs. No additional value is provided.

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 Classification' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_a_classification', 'delete_a_company_action_plan_templates'). The inclusion of '[Company Admin/Company Settings] DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/work_classifications/{id}' provides technical context but does not clarify the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions (e.g., Company Admin role), or contextual constraints, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'delete_a_classification' for comparison. The agent is left with no usage instructions.

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