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 operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, or any side effects. This leaves critical safety and operational details unclear.

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 and front-loaded with the key action and resource. It includes the API endpoint, which is relevant but could be considered extraneous. The single sentence is efficient, though it could benefit from structuring into separate purpose and context sentences for clarity.

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 complexity of a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on consequences, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent without necessary context to understand the tool's full impact and behavior.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with parameters 'id' and 'project_id' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)'), providing specific intent. It also includes the API endpoint path, which reinforces the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_requisition_subcontractor_invoice_v1_1', leaving some ambiguity.

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 mentions the context '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' but does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. Without this, the agent lacks context for appropriate tool selection.

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