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 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but does not clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading impacts). The inclusion of the HTTP method 'DELETE' and path adds technical context but not operational behavior. This is inadequate for a mutation tool 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 concise with two sentences, but the second sentence is a technical endpoint detail that may not aid an AI agent in understanding tool purpose. The first sentence is front-loaded but overly brief. While there is no wasted text, the structure lacks informative depth, making it minimally adequate rather than optimally helpful.

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 fails to address critical aspects like deletion permanence, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool in a complex system with many sibling tools, this description leaves significant gaps in understanding operational context and outcomes.

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 parameter descriptions: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Project Action Plan Template Reference ID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or relationship between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without description enhancement.

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 'Delete Project Action Plan Template Reference' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Delete' and resource 'Project Action Plan Template Reference', but lacks specificity about what this reference represents or the scope of deletion. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_project_action_plan_template_reference', it distinguishes as a deletion operation but remains vague.

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., existing references), consequences of deletion, or related tools like 'bulk_delete_action_plan_template_references' or 'restore_recycled_project_action_plan_template_reference'. Without such context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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