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' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The HTTP method (DELETE) is mentioned, but this is technical detail rather than behavioral context for an AI agent.

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 (one sentence plus technical detail) but could be more front-loaded with actionable information. The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint ('DELETE /rest/v1.0/purchase_order_contracts/{id}') is technical noise that doesn't help an AI agent understand usage. However, it's not overly verbose.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover what happens on success/failure, return values, error conditions, or safety warnings. The context signals show 2 required parameters, but the description doesn't explain their interplay or necessity.

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 both parameters ('id' and 'project_id') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters (e.g., that 'id' refers to the purchase order contract ID, or that both are required for scoping). Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Purchase Order Contract'), with additional context about the domain ('Construction Financials/Commitments'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on deletion rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'delete_purchase_order_contract_detail_line_item'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid ID), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., if the contract is referenced elsewhere). The sibling tools list includes many deletion tools, but no comparison is offered.

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