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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It also doesn't mention what happens to associated data or whether there are confirmation steps. The API endpoint format provides some context but insufficient behavioral guidance.

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 but under-specified. While it efficiently states the action and includes platform/endpoint information, it lacks essential context about what's being deleted and when to use it. The single sentence format is structurally sound but incomplete, making it more of an under-specification issue than a conciseness problem.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'webhooks trigger' is, what deleting it entails, potential consequences, or authentication requirements. For a deletion tool with significant implications, the description should provide more contextual guidance about the operation's scope and impact.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (hook_id, id, company_id, project_id) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra.

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 Trigger' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the platform and API endpoint, but doesn't explain what a 'webhooks trigger' is or what deleting it actually does. The description lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling 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. There are sibling tools like 'delete_company_webhooks_trigger_v2_0' and 'delete_project_webhooks_trigger_v2_0' that appear to serve similar purposes, but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them or explain when this specific deletion tool should be used.

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