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 fails to mention that this is a destructive operation, whether it's irreversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The description merely states 'Delete Department' without behavioral context, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.

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. 'Delete Department' is brief, and the bracketed technical details add some structure, but the front-loaded information lacks substance. It avoids verbosity but fails to provide necessary context, making it inefficient in conveying tool behavior.

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, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical aspects like success/error responses, confirmation requirements, or impact on related data. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 ('Department ID', 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema fully documents the two required parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate for gaps but doesn't need to.

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 Department' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks specificity about what 'Delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal, soft delete) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_a_department' or other deletion tools in the list. The bracketed '[Core/Directory] DELETE /rest/v1.0/departments/{id}' provides technical context but doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or what happens after deletion. With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., delete_department, delete_a_department), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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