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 operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated images, required permissions, or error conditions (e.g., if the category is in use). The HTTP method 'DELETE' is noted but adds little practical value for an AI agent.

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. However, the bracketed text '[Project Management/Photos]' is cryptic and could be removed without loss. The HTTP endpoint detail is extraneous for tool selection. Overall, it is concise but includes minor noise.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on side effects, success/error responses, and safety considerations. The agent cannot understand the full impact or expected behavior from the description alone, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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 descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'project_id'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not explain why both parameters are required or their interrelationship.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('image category'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_category', 'delete_subcategory') beyond the resource name, and the bracketed text '[Project Management/Photos]' is ambiguous and adds no clarity. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity about what an 'image category' entails.

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 (e.g., needing to identify the category first), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_image_category' or 'list_image_categories'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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