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', implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. The description adds no context beyond the basic action.

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 with 'Delete Project Location.' followed by a technical endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core action, and the endpoint detail, while not user-friendly, is not wasteful. However, the endpoint string adds minimal value for an AI agent.

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 is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as the effect of deletion, error conditions, or return values. The high schema coverage does not compensate for the missing behavioral and usage information.

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 'location_id' as 'ID of the location'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 Location' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the verb 'Delete' and resource 'Project Location', but lacks specificity about what a 'Project Location' is or the scope of the deletion. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_location' or 'delete_project_location' (without version).

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, permissions, or related tools. Given the sibling list includes multiple deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_location', 'delete_project_location'), the absence of any differentiation is a significant gap.

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