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 operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects, or error handling. The '[Legacy]' tag hints at deprecation but isn't explained. This leaves 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Delete resource'). However, the inclusion of technical endpoint details ('DELETE /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/schedule/resources/{id}') and the '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' tag adds clutter without clear user benefit. It's concise but could be more focused on user guidance rather than API mechanics.

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 inadequate. It fails to address key contextual aspects: what a 'resource' means in this context, the impact of deletion, success/error responses, or legacy implications. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent underinformed.

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 ('Unique identifier for the project', 'ID of the resource'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the two parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—no extra value is added, but the schema suffices.

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. [Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] DELETE /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/schedule/resources/{id}' restates the tool name ('Delete resource') and adds only technical endpoint details. It lacks a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other delete tools (like delete_resource, delete_resource_v1_1, delete_resource_assignment_v1_1). The purpose is vague beyond the obvious deletion action.

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 does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or sibling tools (like delete_resource or other resource-related deletion tools). It offers no context for selection among similar delete operations.

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