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 states 'Delete' implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires permissions, or has side effects. The legacy tag hints at deprecation but lacks details on risks or alternatives.

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 Lookahead'), followed by context in brackets and the API endpoint. It avoids unnecessary words, though the legacy tag could be more informative. Overall, it's efficient with minimal 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a destructive tool. It lacks details on permissions, confirmation prompts, return values, or error handling. The legacy tag adds some context but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output information.

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', 'id' as 'Lookahead ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Delete Lookahead' which is a specific verb+resource, but it's vague about what a 'Lookahead' is (only clarified as '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]'). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_lookahead_v1_1' or 'delete_lookahead_task', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_lookahead_v1_1' or 'delete_lookahead_task' is provided. The description includes a legacy tag but doesn't explain implications or exclusions, offering minimal context for decision-making.

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