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 Prime Contract,' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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'). The additional context (brackets and API endpoint) is relevant but could be more streamlined. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the API endpoint detail might be overly technical for some agents.

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 complexity (destructive delete with three required parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover critical aspects like success/error responses, idempotency, or safety warnings. For a mutation tool with no structured behavioral data, this is inadequate.

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 (company_id, project_id, prime_contract_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 the resource ('Prime Contract'), with additional context in brackets ('Construction Financials/Prime Contracts') and the API endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_prime_contract' (without '_v2_0') by including the version, but does not explicitly differentiate from other delete operations on prime contracts (e.g., 'delete_prime_contract_line_item_v2_0').

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other deletion tools (like 'delete_prime_contract' or 'delete_prime_contract_line_item_v2_0'). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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