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 Incident', implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), error conditions, or rate limits. The API endpoint suggests a REST delete action, but this is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 three elements: action, category, and endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with essential information for an agent (e.g., purpose or guidelines). The structure is minimal but not wasteful, though it could be more informative without losing brevity.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects: what an 'incident' entails, the implications of deletion, error handling, or return values. For a tool that permanently removes data, this lack of information poses significant risks for agent 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 clear parameter descriptions: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Incident ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Incident' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Incidents]' and API endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/{id}', which hints at context but does not specify what the tool does beyond the obvious verb 'delete'. It lacks a clear statement of purpose distinguishing it from siblings, such as what type of incident or under what conditions.

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, permissions, or sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_incident' vs. 'restore_recycled_incident' or 'delete_bulk_coordination_issues'). Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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