Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. The endpoint reference suggests a REST DELETE operation but adds minimal practical context for an 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 two brief phrases. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification. The endpoint reference adds technical context but doesn't earn its place for agent usability. It's front-loaded with the core action but lacks necessary explanatory 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful deletion. The agent lacks critical context needed to safely invoke this tool, especially given the irreversible nature implied by 'Delete'.

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 in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain relationships between project_id, id, and party_id, or why all three are required. With complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract.

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 Membership' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds no specificity about what a 'Project Membership' is or what deletion entails. While it includes a technical endpoint reference '[Core/Directory] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/project_memberships/{id}', this doesn't clarify the business purpose or differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_a_user_from_the_project' or 'bulk_remove_project_memberships_v2_0'.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'remove_a_user_from_the_project' or bulk operations. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the literal name.

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