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 task', implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The mention of 'Legacy' hints at deprecation but is unclear. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 parts: 'Delete task' and the API path annotation. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the legacy note could be better integrated. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient, but it lacks structural clarity for tool selection.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like what 'task' entails, the implications of deletion, error conditions, or return values. The legacy hint is insufficient for a mutation tool, leaving the agent with inadequate information for safe invocation.

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 'id' and 'project_id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 task' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] DELETE /rest/v1.0/tasks/{id}', which provides some context but does not clearly distinguish what 'task' refers to or how it differs from sibling tools like 'delete_project_task_v2_0_company'. The purpose is vague and lacks a clear verb-resource distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'delete_project_task_v2_0_company' or 'destroy_task_item'. Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for selection.

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