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' but does not clarify if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting financial records), or returns any confirmation. The description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits for a destructive operation.

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 but under-specified. It wastes characters on the endpoint path ('DELETE /rest/v1.0/contract_payments/{id}') which doesn't aid an AI agent, while omitting essential context. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks follow-up details, making it inefficient despite brevity.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with 3 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon deletion, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely or 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID', 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 'Delete Contract Payment. [Construction Financials/Commitments] DELETE /rest/v1.0/contract_payments/{id}' restates the tool name ('Delete Contract Payment') and adds a technical endpoint path, but it does not provide a clear, specific verb+resource explanation beyond the name. It distinguishes from siblings by implying deletion, but lacks detail on what a 'contract payment' is or the scope of deletion.

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, consequences, or sibling tools for related operations (e.g., create or list contract payments). Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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