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' which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., on associated data), or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context 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 with a single sentence stating the action and resource, followed by a category and API path. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the API path adds minimal value for an AI agent. There is no wasted text, but it could be more structured.

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 is a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical context like deletion consequences, success/error responses, or typical usage scenarios. For a destructive tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters (id, project_id, view). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 drawing upload' states a clear action ('Delete') and resource ('drawing upload'), but it is vague about what a 'drawing upload' entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_drawing_set' or 'delete_drawing_area_v1_1'. It lacks specificity beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 (e.g., needing a specific project or upload ID), exclusions, or related tools for managing drawing uploads. Usage is implied only by the action and resource.

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