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 Subcategory' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletion). The HTTP method (DELETE) in the description hints at destructiveness, but explicit behavioral details are missing.

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 brief with 'Delete Subcategory' followed by a bracketed category and HTTP endpoint. The first two words are front-loaded with the core action, but the endpoint details may be redundant noise for an agent. It's concise but could be more focused on human-readable guidance.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., success response, error conditions), or provide any context about the resource hierarchy. For a 4-parameter delete operation, more completeness is needed.

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 all 4 parameters well-documented in the schema (company_id, project_id, category_id, subcategory_id). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but no added value.

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 'Delete Subcategory' which clearly indicates the verb (delete) and resource (subcategory). However, it doesn't specify what a subcategory is in this context or distinguish it from similar tools like 'delete_category' or 'delete_sub_job' in the sibling list. The purpose is understandable but lacks domain-specific clarification.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the subcategory must be empty), consequences, or related tools like 'add_subcategory_to_category' from the sibling list. The agent receives no usage context.

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