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 from project,' implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 but under-specified, consisting of a tautological phrase and a URL fragment. While brief, it fails to convey necessary information efficiently, as the URL clutter does not aid understanding. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon deletion, return values, or error conditions. For a 2-parameter mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate 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 clear parameter descriptions ('Unique identifier for the project' and 'ID of the vendor'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 from project' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'delete_from_project_v1_1' without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to distinguish what is being deleted (e.g., a vendor from a project) or from what context. While the URL path hints at vendors, this is not explicitly stated in the description.

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 does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_from_project' without version suffix), leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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