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 operation, but does not disclose whether this is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious implication of deletion.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, though the inclusion of the API endpoint path 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/prime_change_order_batches/{id}' is somewhat technical and may not add value for an AI agent. Overall, it's efficient but could be slightly more polished.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., success response, error conditions, or side effects), nor does it cover permissions, safety warnings, or recovery options. Given the complexity and risk of deletion, more context is needed.

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 both parameters ('project_id' and 'id') clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between them. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Batch'), and includes the domain context '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts]'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact resource type, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other delete tools like 'delete_prime_change_order' or 'delete_prime_contract'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or when deletion is appropriate compared to other operations like updating or archiving. It's a bare statement of function with no contextual advice.

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