Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete RFQ' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. The HTTP method 'DELETE' is mentioned but doesn't add meaningful behavioral context for an AI agent. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise (two short phrases) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The HTTP endpoint information 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/rfqs/{id}' is included but doesn't add value for an AI agent using the tool. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary information efficiently.

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 severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what RFQ stands for, what gets deleted, whether there are side effects, what confirmation or response to expect, or any error conditions. The domain hint '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' is insufficient given the complexity of the operation.

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 all three parameters (id, project_id, contract_id) having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 RFQ' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the resource (RFQ) and verb (Delete) but lacks specificity about what RFQ means or the scope of deletion. The bracketed text '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' provides some domain context but doesn't explain the action meaningfully.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools (including other delete operations like delete_a_budget_change, delete_accident_log, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific RFQ deletion tool is appropriate versus other deletion tools or what prerequisites might exist.

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