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 mutation, but doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent/reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious destructive nature.

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 plus API path) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the API path clutter ('DELETE /rest/v2.0/...') adds noise without value for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's well-structured but could be more focused.

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 complexity (destructive operation with 3 required IDs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, success/error responses, or contextual nuances (e.g., what happens if attributes are in use). For a delete tool with no structured safety hints, more description 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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between company_id, project_id, and wbs_attribute_id, or format expectations. 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 states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('Wbs Attributes'), which is clear. However, it's vague about what 'Wbs Attributes' are (Work Breakdown Structure attributes in Construction Financials context) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_wbs_attribute_item_v2_0' or 'delete_wbs_segment', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'delete_wbs_attribute_item_v2_0' (likely for individual items) and 'delete_wbs_segment', but the description doesn't clarify if this deletes all attributes, a specific one (implied by wbs_attribute_id parameter), or how it differs. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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