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 Signature' which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The URL path hints at a REST endpoint but adds minimal behavioral insight.

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 with 'Delete Signature' and includes a URL path in brackets, which is efficient. However, the URL path adds technical detail that may not be necessary for an AI agent. The structure is front-loaded but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive operation, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like what happens post-deletion, error conditions, or confirmation requirements. The tool's complexity (deletion in a project management context) warrants more guidance than provided.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 Signature' states the action (delete) and resource (signature), but it's vague about what type of signature is being deleted (e.g., from a time and material entry). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_signature_project' or 'delete_signature_for_time_and_material_entry', leaving ambiguity. The URL path provides context but isn't part of the descriptive text.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this deletion is appropriate. Sibling tools include similar delete operations, but no distinctions are made.

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