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,' implying a destructive operation, but does not clarify if this is permanent, reversible, or requires confirmation. It also omits details on permissions, error handling, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, though it includes an API endpoint detail that may be redundant. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient but slightly cluttered with technical path information.

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, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical context such as confirmation requirements, return values, or error conditions. For a deletion tool with four parameters, more behavioral and operational details are needed to guide safe 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 parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the four required IDs. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Project Webhooks Trigger'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_company_webhooks_trigger_v2_0' or 'bulk_delete_project_webhooks_triggers_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about scope and alternatives. It is not tautological but lacks specificity for sibling distinction.

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, such as needing specific permissions or existing webhooks, nor does it reference sibling tools for bulk deletion or company-level operations. Usage context is implied only by the tool name, with no explicit instructions.

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