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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete Project Role' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, irreversibility, side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap 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 extremely concise ('Delete Project Role') and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint '[Core/Project] DELETE /rest/v1.0/project_roles/{id}' is somewhat redundant and could be considered clutter, though it doesn't significantly detract from clarity.

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 incomplete. It fails to address critical context such as what happens upon deletion (e.g., cascading effects, error handling), required permissions, or typical response format. This leaves the agent poorly informed for safe 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'id' and 'project_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Role' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (project role), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_a_single_project, delete_project_type), leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to other deletion tools (e.g., delete_role_from_project), making it misleadingly simple and offering no usage context.

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