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. It states 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/standard_cost_codes/{id}' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, or has cascading effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method, leaving critical safety information undocumented.

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and one showing the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action. The bracketed context could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Delete' entails (permanent? soft delete?), what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or what the response contains. The API endpoint reference adds some technical context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral information.

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 ('ID' and 'Unique identifier for the company.'). The description doesn't add parameter semantics beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage and only 2 parameters, the baseline is appropriately high. No additional parameter context is needed.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Delete Standard Cost Code', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (like 'delete_cost_code' or 'delete_standard_cost_code_list'), and the bracketed context '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' adds some domain specificity but doesn't fully distinguish it from similar deletion tools.

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, permissions needed, or what happens after deletion. Given the destructive nature implied by 'Delete', this lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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