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 location', which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., cascading impacts on related data), error conditions, or rate limits. The HTTP method hint suggests a REST call but adds no operational context.

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 extremely concise—two words plus a technical hint—with no wasted words. However, this brevity leads to under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, making it efficient in form but insufficient in content.

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 destructive nature, absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects: what a 'location' is, the implications of deletion, required permissions, or expected response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 ('ID of the location', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as format examples or interdependencies. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 location' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what a 'location' represents in this context (e.g., a project site, geographic point) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_project_location' or 'delete_location_admin'. The HTTP method hint '[Core/Project] DELETE /rest/v1.0/locations/{id}' adds technical detail but does not clarify the functional purpose.

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. With sibling tools like 'delete_project_location' and 'delete_location_admin' present, there is no indication of the scope (e.g., company vs. project), prerequisites, or conditions for deletion. The agent is left without any usage context.

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