Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete drawing set', implying a destructive operation, but does not clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The REST endpoint hint ('DELETE') adds minimal context but 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 and front-loaded with the core action. It includes additional context (category and endpoint) that, while not fully explanatory, is concise. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 inadequate. It fails to address critical aspects like confirmation prompts, error handling, or return values. For a delete operation with zero annotation coverage, more completeness is needed to guide the agent safely.

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 parameters 'project_id' and 'id' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value 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 states the action ('Delete drawing set') and resource, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_drawing_upload', 'delete_drawing_upload_v1_1') that might handle related resources, leaving ambiguity about scope. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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 includes a category '[Project Management/Drawings]' and a REST endpoint, but these do not offer explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'delete_drawing_upload'. This leaves the agent without contextual direction.

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