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 the tool performs a 'Delete' operation, implying it is destructive, but does not clarify if deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The endpoint path hints at an API structure but adds no operational context (e.g., side effects, error conditions).

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 and to the point, consisting of a single sentence fragment and an endpoint path. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the endpoint detail may be more technical than needed for an agent. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the impact of deletion, success/error responses, or any safety considerations. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed to guide safe and correct usage.

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 in the schema ('Unique identifier for the company', 'Work Activity ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema is fully documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Work Activity' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and an endpoint path, but does not specify what a 'Work Activity' is, what resources it affects, or how it differs from other deletion tools like 'delete_work_log' or 'delete_task'. This provides minimal clarity beyond the name itself.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), consequences of deletion, or any context for selecting it over similar tools like 'delete_work_log' or 'destroy_task_item'. Without such information, the agent lacks actionable usage instructions.

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