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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete group', implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated resources (e.g., with 'delete_resources' parameter), or any rate limits. The HTTP method 'DELETE' in the URL is a technical detail but not a substitute for behavioral context.

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 only two short phrases. The first phrase 'Delete group' is overly terse, while the second includes a bracketed domain hint and a URL, which adds technical detail but not helpful context for an AI agent. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it inefficient in conveying necessary information.

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 fails to address key contextual aspects like what a 'group' represents, the implications of deletion, error conditions, or return values. The bracketed domain and URL do not compensate for these gaps, leaving the agent inadequately informed for safe and correct usage.

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 all parameters documented in the schema (company_id, project_id, group_id, delete_resources). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the effect of 'delete_resources' or the hierarchy implied by the IDs. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 group' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what a 'group' is or what resource it operates on. It lacks the specific verb+resource clarity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools, such as 'delete_a_single_group' which appears to be a similar operation. The bracketed '[Project Management/Document Markup]' adds some context but is vague and not integrated into the 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, conditions for use, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_a_single_group', leaving the agent with no usage context. The bracketed text hints at a domain but offers no practical usage instructions.

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