Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The API path hints at a REST DELETE but adds minimal behavioral insight.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. The API path is included, which is somewhat redundant but not overly verbose. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the bracketed category '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' adds minor clutter without clear value.

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 with 2 parameters, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on what a 'Commitment Change Order' is, the impact of deletion, success/error responses, or system constraints. For a mutation tool in a complex domain, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the API path structure. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('Commitment Change Order'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_commitment_change_order_batch' or 'delete_commitment_change_order_line_item_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about scope. The inclusion of the API path adds technical context but doesn't enhance purpose clarity.

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. With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., for batches, line items, contracts), the description lacks any context on prerequisites, constraints, or distinctions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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