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 states 'DELETE' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects. The bracketed context adds minimal domain context but no behavioral traits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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—a single sentence fragment with bracketed context and HTTP details. While under-specified, it's not verbose. Every element (tool name, context, HTTP method) serves a purpose, though more content would be beneficial. It's front-loaded with the core action.

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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and complex sibling relationships, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'segment item' is, the consequences of deletion, or how it differs from bulk deletion tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and correctly.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description meets this baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 Segment Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a bracketed context hint ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure') and the HTTP method/path, but doesn't specify what a 'segment item' is or what deletion entails. The purpose is vague beyond the obvious verb 'Delete'.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (including 'bulk_delete_project_segment_items'), the description fails to indicate whether this is for single-item deletion versus bulk operations, or any prerequisites. The agent receives zero usage context.

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