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 indicates a destructive operation ('Delete'), which is clear, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 Monitoring Resource'). The API path inclusion is somewhat redundant but not overly verbose. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details).

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 insufficient. It does not address safety considerations, expected outcomes, or error handling. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent 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 'Monitoring Resource ID'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the verb ('Delete') and resource ('Monitoring Resource'), which clarifies the basic action. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'Monitoring Resource' entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_monitoring_resource' vs. 'delete_resource' or other deletion tools). The inclusion of the API path adds technical context but doesn't enhance semantic clarity for an AI agent.

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 a specific project context), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'create_monitoring_resource' or 'list_monitoring_resources'. Without such context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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