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' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The API endpoint hint suggests a destructive operation, but explicit warnings are missing.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the API endpoint for context. It is efficient with no redundant sentences, though the inclusion of the endpoint could be seen as slightly technical but still concise.

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 destructive nature of the tool (implied by 'Delete'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address safety considerations, permissions, or confirmation prompts to adequately inform an agent about the tool's impact.

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 descriptions for both parameters (company_id as 'Unique identifier for the company' and id as 'Reference ID'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the specific resource 'Company Action Plan Template Reference', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_company_action_plan_template_item_assignee' or 'delete_project_action_plan_template_reference'. It includes the API endpoint path, reinforcing the scope.

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 (e.g., other deletion tools for action plans). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid company_id and reference ID, or when deletion is appropriate.

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