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 Observation Item,' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The API endpoint hints at a REST delete operation, but no additional context is given.

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 three parts: action, category, and endpoint. However, it's not front-loaded with essential usage information, and the endpoint detail may be redundant in some contexts. It avoids waste but lacks structural clarity for an AI agent.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an observation item is, the impact of deletion, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed to guide safe usage.

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: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Observation ID'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, but the schema adequately documents the parameters, meeting the baseline score of 3 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 Observation Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Observations]' and an API endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/observations/items/{id}', which provides technical context but doesn't specify what an 'observation item' is or what deletion entails. It distinguishes from siblings by implying deletion vs. creation (e.g., 'create_observation_item'), but the purpose remains 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing observation item), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., if archival is preferred). Sibling tools include many deletion operations, but no differentiation is offered.

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