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 Stamp' and includes the HTTP DELETE method, implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on associated documents), or error handling. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe invocation.

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 no wasted words, consisting of a brief statement and the endpoint path. It is front-loaded with the action ('Delete Stamp'). However, the inclusion of the full endpoint path adds technical detail that may not be necessary for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (implied by 'Delete'), no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter set, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what a stamp is, the consequences of deletion, authentication needs, or response format. For a deletion tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 parameters 'company_id', 'project_id', and 'stamp_id' each described as themselves (e.g., 'company_id' description is 'company_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description does not compensate for the lack of semantic detail in the schema descriptions.

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 Stamp. [Project Management/Document Markup] DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/viewer_documents/stamps/{stamp_id}' restates the tool name ('Delete Stamp') and adds only the HTTP method and endpoint path. It does not specify what a 'stamp' is in this context or what deletion entails, making it vague beyond the obvious verb-noun pairing. Compared to sibling tools like 'delete_stamp_v2_0', it lacks differentiation.

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 (e.g., 'delete_stamp_v2_0' or other deletion tools in the sibling list). It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for stamp deletion, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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