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 mutation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or what the response looks like. The API endpoint hints at a REST DELETE operation, but explicit behavioral details are missing.

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 wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The inclusion of the API endpoint is somewhat redundant but not overly verbose. Overall, it is efficiently structured for its limited content.

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 complexity of a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavior, outcomes, error conditions, and usage context. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap, as agents need more guidance to invoke it correctly and 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 company' and 'Harm Source ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the inputs without needing extra explanation in the description.

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 Harm Source' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and an API endpoint, but fails to specify what a 'Harm Source' is or what deletion entails. While the endpoint provides some context, the purpose remains vague compared to what could be explicitly stated.

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 for deletion, or related tools (e.g., 'create_harm_source' or 'list_harm_sources' from the sibling list). Without this, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage contexts.

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