Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete' but does not clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The HTTP method (DELETE) implies destruction, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic action.

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. It wastes no words, but the single sentence lacks essential context (e.g., what a Hazard is). While structured, it fails to provide meaningful information beyond the tool name and endpoint.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the consequences of deletion, success/error responses, or required permissions. For a delete tool, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its behavior and impact.

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', 'Hazard ID'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents inputs.

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 Hazard. [Project Management/Incidents] DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/hazards/{id}' restates the tool name ('Delete Hazard') and adds only a category tag and HTTP method/endpoint. It does not specify what a 'Hazard' resource is or what deletion entails, making it a tautology with minimal additional context.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or related tools (e.g., 'create_hazard', 'update_hazard', 'list_hazards'), leaving the agent with no usage context.

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