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 Punch Item', implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The endpoint suggests a REST DELETE, but behavioral details like confirmation prompts or error handling are absent.

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 three elements: action, category, and endpoint. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks depth, making it minimally adequate without being wasteful.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a Punch Item is, the impact of deletion, or return values. For a mutation tool with critical behavior, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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: 'id' as 'ID of the Punch Item' and 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema provides adequate documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 Punch Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Punch List]' and endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/punch_items/{id}', which hints at context but doesn't specify what a 'Punch Item' is or what deletion entails. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'delete_punch_item_v1_1' or other deletion tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or sibling tools like 'delete_punch_item_v1_1'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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