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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' but does not clarify if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has side effects. The API path hint suggests a destructive operation, but explicit warnings or constraints 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of the API path in brackets adds technical clutter without aiding the agent's decision-making, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical details like confirmation prompts, error handling, return values, or impact on related entities (e.g., checklist items). Given the complexity and risk, more context is needed 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 descriptions for 'company_id' and 'id' parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as format examples or contextual usage. Since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Company Checklist Section'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_company_checklist_template' or 'delete_checklist_section', making it vague in context. The inclusion of the API path adds technical detail but does not enhance functional 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, such as other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_company_checklist_template'). The description lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions, leaving 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.