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 Form,' implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are needed, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or error conditions. The API path hints at a REST DELETE operation but adds no actionable context for the agent.

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. 'Delete Form' is redundant, and the bracketed context and API path are appended without integration. While concise, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on tautological content. It could be more effectively structured to convey purpose upfront.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects: what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling), return values, or implications. For a delete operation, this gap is significant, leaving the agent underinformed about risks and outcomes.

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 'Form ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema is well-documented, a 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 Form' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks specificity about what 'Form' refers to (e.g., a project form in Procore) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_form' vs. 'delete_project_form' or other deletion tools. The bracketed '[Project Management/Forms]' and API path provide some context but are not integrated into a clear purpose statement.

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., required permissions), conditions for use, or sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., 'delete_project_form' or other form-related tools). The agent is left with no usage instructions.

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