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 mentions '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]', hinting at permission requirements, but does not explicitly state if this is destructive, irreversible, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The API endpoint detail is structural, not behavioral, leaving critical safety information unclear.

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 includes extraneous API endpoint details ('DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/configurable_field_sets/{id}') that do not aid the agent. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the second part is redundant and could be omitted for better conciseness.

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 (delete operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address critical aspects like confirmation prompts, error handling, or return values (e.g., success/failure indicators), leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.

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' and 'Configurable Field Set ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully documented, the 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 ('Configurable Field Set'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., other delete operations like 'delete_a_single_project' or 'delete_company_action_plan_templates'), and the inclusion of API endpoint details adds noise without enhancing 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. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), consequences, or related tools (e.g., 'create_configurable_field_sets' or 'find_configurable_field_set_by_index'), 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.