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' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the action, resource, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key information and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be more structured with usage notes.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to address critical aspects like confirmation requirements, return values, error handling, or impact on related data. The context signals indicate a simple parameter set, but the description does not compensate for the lack of behavioral transparency.

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 both parameters ('project_id' and 'id'). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Prime Change Order'), and includes the API endpoint path which reinforces the context. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the exact resource type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations (e.g., 'delete_prime_change_order_batch').

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project and order ID), consequences of deletion, or any warnings about irreversible actions. It simply restates the operation without usage context.

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