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 resource' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or what happens on success/failure. The API path hint suggests it's a legacy operation, but this isn't elaborated.

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 brief but under-specified rather than concise. 'Delete resource' is too vague, and the bracketed API path adds technical detail without clarifying purpose. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary information efficiently, making it less helpful than a truly concise description would be.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'resource' is in this context, the consequences of deletion, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of a delete operation and lack of structured data, the description should provide more context 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 both parameters ('id' and 'project_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain why both IDs are required or their relationship. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 resource' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] DELETE /rest/v1.0/resources/{id}', which provides some context but doesn't clearly state what the tool does beyond the obvious deletion action. It lacks distinction from sibling tools like 'delete_resource_v1_1' or other delete operations.

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, conditions for use, or differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_resource_v1_1'). The agent receives no usage instructions beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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