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 Contributing Condition,' implying a destructive mutation, but does not clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The endpoint suggests a REST DELETE operation, but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error conditions are described.

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 three elements: action, category, and endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with actionable information; the endpoint detail may be less helpful than a plain-language explanation. While efficient, it lacks structure that guides the agent, such as separating purpose from technical details.

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 deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Contributing Condition' is, the consequences of deletion, or what the response might contain. For a destructive tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding for safe and correct 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'company_id' (Unique identifier for the company) and 'id' (Contributing Condition ID). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional context about parameter usage or constraints is provided.

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 Condition' 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_conditions/{id}', which provides technical context but does not specify what a 'Contributing Condition' is or what deletion entails. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_contributing_behavior' or 'bulk_update_contributing_conditions'.

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, such as needing a valid company_id and id, or when deletion is appropriate compared to updates or other operations. With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_contributing_behavior'), there is no differentiation, leaving the agent without usage context.

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