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 behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, or error conditions. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary operational context.

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 concise with a single sentence, but it includes extraneous API path details ('[Core/Directory] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/vendors/{vendor_id}/insurances/{id}') that do not aid the AI agent in tool selection. While brief, the structure could be improved by focusing on user-facing information rather than implementation details.

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's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation, error messages, or return values), nor does it cover permissions or side effects. For a deletion tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps.

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 parameters like 'project_id' and 'vendor_id'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the inputs. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 vendor insurance' restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It specifies the resource ('project vendor insurance') and verb ('Delete'), but lacks specificity about what exactly is being deleted (e.g., an insurance record) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_company_vendor_insurance' or 'delete_project_insurance', making it vague in distinguishing scope.

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, conditions, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_project_vendor_insurance' or 'update_project_vendor_insurance'), leaving the agent with no usage context.

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