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' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or what the response looks like. The API path hint suggests it's a REST delete operation, but no explicit warnings or constraints are given.

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 (one sentence with technical details) but not well-structured for an agent. It front-loads the tool name redundantly and buries the API method/path. While efficient, it lacks clarity for tool selection. Every part earns its place, but the overall structure could be improved for readability.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and rich sibling context), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address safety concerns, return values, or usage context. For a deletion tool in a system with many similar tools, more completeness is needed to guide the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (id, project_id) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the API path hint '{id}', which aligns with the schema but doesn't explain relationships (e.g., why both id and project_id are required). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Sub Job. [Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] DELETE /rest/v1.0/sub_jobs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Delete Sub Job') and adds technical details (API path), but lacks a clear, specific explanation of what the tool does. It doesn't distinguish this from other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_a_budget_change, delete_a_classification). The purpose is implied but not explicitly stated in user-friendly terms.

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. With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., delete_subcategory, delete_submittal_v1_1), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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