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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete todo' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. The API path hint suggests it's a legacy operation, but this isn't elaborated. The description fails to provide critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 but inefficiently structured. 'Delete todo' is overly terse and under-specified, while the bracketed API information, though potentially useful, is presented as an afterthought rather than integrated meaningfully. The two-part structure lacks clear front-loading of essential information for an agent.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'todo' refers to in the system context, what the deletion entails, possible side effects, or error conditions. The API path provides some technical context but doesn't compensate for the lack of functional completeness needed for safe tool 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 both parameters (id and project_id) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema fully describes the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 todo' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which include many other deletion operations (e.g., delete_todo is distinct from delete_a_task, delete_a_note, etc.). The bracketed text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] DELETE /rest/v1.0/todos/{id}' provides API context but doesn't clarify the tool's functional purpose beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or differentiate it from other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_task, delete_a_single_project). Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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