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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description fails to specify critical details such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., impact on nested files). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 Project Folder'), followed by technical details ('[Core/Documents] DELETE /rest/v1.0/folders/{id}'). While efficient, the technical path adds minimal value for an AI agent and could be considered slightly extraneous.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or error conditions, nor does it explain what happens upon success or failure. This leaves the agent poorly informed for safe invocation.

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 ('id' and 'project_id') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameters, such as how to obtain the IDs or their relationships. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Project Folder'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (e.g., delete_project_file, delete_project_folder), which are similar in scope but target different resources.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or comparisons with other deletion tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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