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. It mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', implying permission requirements, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, has side effects, or requires specific authorization levels. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a destructive operation.

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 brief but includes unnecessary technical details like the HTTP method and endpoint path, which do not aid the AI agent. It could be more front-loaded with actionable information. However, it is not overly verbose, so it meets a basic standard of conciseness.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, consequences, error handling, or what happens upon deletion (e.g., if related data is affected). For a tool that performs a delete operation, 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 descriptions for company_id and id parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'Project Region' is or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Project Region'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from other delete tools (e.g., delete_project_location, delete_project_role) among the many siblings, and includes extraneous details like '[Company Admin/Company Settings] DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/project_regions/{id}' that don't clarify purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', hinting at permissions, but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like delete_project_location or delete_project_role.

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