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' but does not disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has side effects. The inclusion of '[Construction Financials/Direct Costs]' and the API path adds some context but not enough 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 and front-loaded with the core action. It includes additional context (category and API path) in a compact format, though the API path might be overly technical for an AI agent. No wasted sentences.

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 this is a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the consequences of deletion, success/error responses, or required permissions. The context signals (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage) are adequate, but the description fails to address the mutation's impact.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'id'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Direct Cost Item'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_direct_cost_item' (without version suffix) or other deletion tools, leaving ambiguity about version-specific behavior or alternatives.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific project context or permissions, and does not mention sibling tools like 'delete_direct_cost_item' (which may be an older version) or other deletion methods.

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