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' (implying a destructive mutation) but does not clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., stopping webhook deliveries). The endpoint details hint at an API call but add no operational context like error handling or rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive tool.

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 with endpoint details) but not front-loaded with actionable information. It wastes space on repetitive name restatement and technical endpoint data that doesn't aid tool selection. While brief, it lacks efficient structure for an agent's needs.

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, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is incomplete. The description fails to address critical aspects: what a 'webhooks hook' is, deletion consequences, authentication needs, or error responses. For a 3-parameter mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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., 'Webhooks Hook ID', 'company_id or project_id' requirement). 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 explained parameter interactions (e.g., why both company_id and project_id are required).

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 Webhooks Hook. [Platform - Developer Tools/Webhooks] DELETE /rest/v1.0/webhooks/hooks/{id}' restates the tool name ('Delete Webhooks Hook') and adds only technical endpoint details. It lacks a clear, specific verb+resource explanation (e.g., what a 'webhooks hook' is, what deletion entails) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_company_webhooks_hook_v2_0' or 'delete_project_webhooks_hook_v2_0'. This is a tautology with minimal added value.

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 a specific hook ID), exclusions, or sibling tools (e.g., company or project-specific webhook deletions). Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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