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 mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 action ('Delete Lookahead'), followed by a category tag and API endpoint. It wastes no words, though the API endpoint detail may be extraneous for an AI agent. Overall, it is efficiently structured.

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, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like confirmation prompts, return values (e.g., success/failure indicators), or error handling, leaving the agent under-informed for safe operation.

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 ('Unique identifier for the project' and 'Lookahead ID'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 clearly indicates a deletion action on a 'Lookahead' resource. However, it does not specify what a 'Lookahead' is (e.g., a schedule planning artifact) or differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_lookahead' or 'delete_lookahead_task', making it somewhat vague.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or comparison with sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_lookahead' or 'delete_lookahead_task'), leaving the agent with no usage context.

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