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. It indicates a destructive operation ('Delete'), implying permanent removal, but does not specify consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion, permissions required, or side effects). The API endpoint hints at a REST DELETE method, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, confirmation prompts) are described, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, but the second sentence (the API endpoint) is redundant for an AI agent's understanding and does not add value beyond structured data. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the endpoint detail is unnecessary clutter. A more focused description would improve efficiency.

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 lacks critical context such as success/error responses, permissions, or irreversible effects. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should provide more behavioral and operational details to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('company_id' and 'id'). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('PDF Template Config'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., other delete operations like 'delete_a_budget_change' or 'delete_pdf_template_configs'), and the inclusion of the API endpoint path adds technical detail but does not enhance clarity for an AI agent. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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, prerequisites, or context. It does not mention sibling tools (e.g., 'create_pdf_template_config' or 'list_pdf_template_configs') or specify conditions for deletion. Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer context solely from the tool name and schema.

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