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. 'Delete Material' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects related data, or what happens on success/failure. The HTTP method (DELETE) hints at destruction but doesn't provide behavioral details. The description adds minimal context beyond the obvious implication of deletion.

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—just three elements separated by spaces. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete Material') and includes supplemental technical details. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be argued it's too terse. Every component (action, category, endpoint) serves a purpose, making it efficient despite its 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Material' means in this system, what the deletion entails, possible side effects, error conditions, or return values. The HTTP endpoint provides some technical context but doesn't address the operational completeness needed for safe tool invocation by an AI 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 both parameters ('id' and 'project_id') documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. However, since the schema fully describes the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete schema coverage.

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 Material' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category label '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and an HTTP endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/materials/{id}', but these don't explain what the tool actually does beyond the obvious verb 'Delete'. It doesn't specify what 'Material' refers to in this context or how it differs from sibling tools.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools (including other delete operations like 'delete_materials' in bulk), there's no indication of when this single-material deletion is appropriate versus bulk operations or other material-related tools. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives are mentioned.

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