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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.

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 to the point, consisting of a single sentence that states the action and includes a category tag ('[Project Management/Meetings]') and API endpoint. While efficient, the endpoint detail may be redundant for tool selection, but it doesn't detract significantly from clarity.

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 complexity of a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address critical aspects like confirmation of deletion, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent without necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 all three parameters (id, meeting_id, project_id) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why all three IDs are required or their interrelationships. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but no extra value from the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('meeting attendee record'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_meeting_attendee_record' or 'update_meeting_attendee_record' by the verb, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations in the list.

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 context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid meeting attendee record ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'delete_meeting' or 'delete_meeting_v1_1', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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