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 operation, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related records). The API path hint ('[Core/Directory] DELETE') reinforces the destructive nature but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 two phrases. The first phrase states the purpose, and the second provides API context. There's no wasted verbiage, but it's arguably too terse given the lack of guidance. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from more informative content.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'project insurance' entails, the implications of deletion, error conditions, or response format. Given the complexity of a deletion operation in a project management context, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 documentation: 'project_id' (unique project identifier), 'id' (insurance ID), and 'view' (extended data view with enum). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 insurance' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('project insurance') but lacks any distinguishing details about scope or effect. Compared to sibling tools like 'delete_company_insurance' or 'delete_project_vendor_insurance', it doesn't differentiate itself beyond the basic name.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over similar deletion tools. The sibling list includes many insurance-related tools (e.g., 'create_project_insurance', 'sync_project_insurances'), but no context is given for selection.

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