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' and includes a DELETE endpoint, implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, or error conditions. The description lacks transparency beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 parts: the tautological name restatement and endpoint details. However, it is not front-loaded with useful information—the endpoint could be omitted or placed later. It wastes space on redundancy but is brief, earning a middling score for structure.

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 delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'Contributing Behavior' is, the consequences of deletion, or expected outputs. The endpoint hint adds minimal context, but overall, it leaves significant gaps for safe and correct usage.

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 for 'company_id' and 'id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the parameters. With high schema coverage, 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 'Delete Contributing Behavior' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and an endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/contributing_behaviors/{id}', but these do not explain what the tool does—e.g., what a 'Contributing Behavior' is or what deletion entails. The purpose remains vague beyond the literal name.

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, context, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_contributing_behavior', 'list_contributing_behaviors', 'update_contributing_behavior', or 'bulk_update_contributing_behaviors'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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