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' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a permanent deletion, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting payroll). The HTTP method (DELETE) hints at destructiveness, but the description does not explicitly confirm or add safety warnings.

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, but the second sentence is a verbose API endpoint path that adds little value for an AI agent. It could be more front-loaded with essential usage info. While not wasteful, it lacks structural emphasis on key details like behavioral implications.

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 is a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical context such as confirmation prompts, error handling, or return values (e.g., success/failure indicators). For a destructive tool, this gap is significant and could lead to misuse.

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 (e.g., company_id format details). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have contextualized parameters (e.g., explaining relationships between IDs).

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Wage Override'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_wage_override' by specifying deletion. However, it lacks nuance about what a 'Wage Override' is, which could help differentiate further from other 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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing wage override), consequences, or related tools like 'update_wage_override' (if it exists). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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