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 image,' implying a destructive mutation, but does not clarify if deletion is permanent by default, reversible, or requires specific permissions. The endpoint hint suggests an HTTP DELETE operation, but critical details like side effects, error conditions, or confirmation prompts are missing, leaving significant gaps.

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 with two parts: a brief action statement and technical details in brackets. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the structure could be improved by front-loading more actionable information (e.g., specifying it's a destructive operation). However, it efficiently communicates the core intent without waste.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as the implications of the 'permanent' parameter, what happens on success/failure, permissions required, or how it relates to sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more but fails to do so.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'ID of the image', 'Unique identifier for the project.', 'If true, permanently deletes the image.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract value.

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 image' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'delete_image' without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('image') but lacks details about scope or context, such as whether it deletes a single image by ID or has broader implications. The bracketed '[Project Management/Photos]' and endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/images/{id}' provide some technical context but do not clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project_id), conditions for use, or sibling tools that might be related (e.g., 'delete_image_category' or 'restore_a_time_and_material_entry'). Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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