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', 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 API path hint '[Construction Financials/Direct Costs] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/direct_costs/{id}' adds some context but is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 inefficiently structured. It repeats the tool name, includes an API path that may not be relevant to an AI agent, and wastes space on bracketed context. While not verbose, it fails to front-load actionable information, making it less helpful than a more focused sentence would be.

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 explain the consequences of deletion, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps for safe and effective use.

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 project.' and 'ID'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, 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 Direct Cost Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the resource ('Direct Cost Item') and verb ('Delete'), but lacks specificity about what a 'Direct Cost Item' is or the scope of deletion. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_direct_cost_item_v1_1, delete_direct_cost_line_item).

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, conditions for use, or compare it to similar tools like delete_direct_cost_item_v1_1 or delete_direct_cost_line_item. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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