Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete meeting', implying a destructive operation, but fails to specify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The mention of '[Project Management/Meetings] DELETE /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/meetings/{id}' adds API context but does not clarify behavioral implications for the agent.

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 concise with two parts: a brief action statement and API details. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Delete meeting'), though the API path could be considered extraneous for agent understanding. There is minimal waste, but it lacks completeness in guidance.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical aspects like confirmation prompts, error handling, return values, or safety warnings, leaving significant gaps for a deletion tool in a project management context.

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 'ID of the meeting'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately covers the two required parameters, meeting the baseline for high 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 meeting' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'delete_meeting_v1_1'. It lacks specificity about what resource is being deleted (e.g., a meeting record in a project management system) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_meeting' or 'delete_meeting_category_v2_0'.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project and meeting IDs), exclusions, or related tools for creating or listing meetings, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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