Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration', implying permission needs, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, has side effects, or requires confirmation. The HTTP method 'DELETE' is noted, but no further context on safety or impact is given.

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 ('Delete link.'), followed by permission and endpoint details. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical notes). Every sentence contributes, but it's slightly terse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive operation (implied by 'DELETE'), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, confirmation requirements, or behavioral nuances. For a mutation tool with significant impact, this leaves gaps in agent understanding.

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 ('Link ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since 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 link' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It does not specify what type of link is being deleted (e.g., a project link, document link) or the resource context, making it vague compared to more specific sibling tools like 'delete_a_link_v2_0'.

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 minimal guidance with '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration]', hinting at permission requirements, but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'delete_a_link_v2_0'), or prerequisites. It does not clarify scenarios for choosing this tool over others.

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