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 Payout' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related records). The URL path hints at hierarchy but doesn't explain behavior.

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 statement and a URL path. It is front-loaded with the action ('Delete Payout'), but the URL adds technical detail without explanation. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more informative.

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 delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: what a payout is, the impact of deletion, success/failure conditions, and return values. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to address behavioral and usage aspects needed for safe invocation.

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 descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified the relationship between company_id, disbursement_id, and payout_id.

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 Payout. [Construction Financials/Payments] DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/payments/disbursements/{disbursement_id}/payouts/{payout_id}' restates the tool name ('Delete Payout') and adds a URL path, but does not specify what a 'payout' is or what the deletion entails. It distinguishes from siblings by being a delete operation, but lacks clarity on the resource being acted upon beyond the name.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or when deletion is appropriate versus other actions like updating or archiving. The sibling tools list includes many delete operations, but no differentiation is provided.

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