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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for a mutation tool, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 core action ('Delete rounding configuration.'). The additional API endpoint information is extraneous for an AI agent but doesn't significantly hinder clarity. It's efficiently structured in a single sentence, though the bracketed category adds minor noise.

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 is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like what happens post-deletion, error conditions, or return values. For a delete operation, this lack of context poses risks, as the agent lacks guidance on outcomes and safety.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'company_id' documented as 'Unique identifier for the company.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to, as the schema is sufficient.

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 ('rounding configuration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_rounding_configuration' and 'update_rounding_configuration' by the verb, though it doesn't explicitly mention siblings. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical context but doesn't detract from clarity.

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 an existing rounding configuration), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., if configuration is in use). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for safe operation.

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