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 states the action is a DELETE operation, implying it is destructive, but does not elaborate on critical aspects like permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on related data), or error handling. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied destructiveness.

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 ('Delete Prime Contract'), followed by a category hint and API endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of the API endpoint may be more technical than needed for an AI agent. The structure is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address key contextual elements such as the permanence of deletion, authorization requirements, potential cascading effects, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or error messages). For a deletion tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 ('id' and 'project_id'). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between the contract ID and project ID or format examples. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the 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 Contract'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other delete operations on prime contracts (e.g., 'delete_prime_contract_v2_0') or clarify what a 'Prime Contract' entails beyond the category hint in brackets.

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, such as other delete operations for prime contracts (e.g., 'delete_prime_contract_v2_0') or related tools like 'delete_prime_contract_line_item'. It lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or typical scenarios for deletion.

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