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 mutation, but doesn't disclose whether this deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The HTTP method 'DELETE' is mentioned, but this is technical implementation detail rather than behavioral guidance for an AI agent.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence stating the action and including the HTTP endpoint. While it lacks necessary information, it doesn't waste words. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, though the bracketed category '[Project Management/Inspections]' adds minimal value.

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 doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation steps, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed for safe and informed tool 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 all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

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 Inspection Template Item Reference' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'Project Inspection Template Item Reference', but provides no additional clarity about what this resource represents or what the deletion entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or any context for when deletion is appropriate. Given the many sibling tools (including other deletion tools), this lack of guidance is problematic.

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