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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete,' implying a destructive operation, but does not specify if deletion is permanent, reversible, or requires specific permissions. The description lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and another providing the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action, and the endpoint adds technical specificity without unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of the endpoint may be redundant if the agent already has structured API data, 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like confirmation of deletion, error handling, or return values. For a deletion tool with three required parameters, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed to guide the agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (company_id, hook_id, id). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or format examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Webhooks Trigger'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_company_webhooks_hook_v2_0' or 'delete_project_webhooks_trigger_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about scope. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail but does not 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific hook or trigger ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'bulk_delete_company_webhooks_triggers_v2_0' for multiple deletions. This lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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