Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Destroy' and 'DELETE', implying a destructive operation, but fails to specify critical details like whether this is irreversible, what permissions are required, or if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The description is minimal and lacks necessary behavioral context 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 with no wasted words, consisting of a brief title-like phrase and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key term 'Destroy Action', but could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). However, it efficiently conveys the core information in a single line.

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 incomplete. It does not address the consequences of deletion, success/error responses, or prerequisites. For a mutation tool with significant impact, this minimal description fails to provide adequate context for 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (project_id, id, incident_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify the relationship between parameters (e.g., why incident_id is optional).

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 'Destroy Action. [Project Management/Incidents] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/actions/{id}' restates the tool name ('Destroy Action') and adds an HTTP method and path, but lacks a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It doesn't explain what 'Action' refers to in the context of incidents, making it vague about the actual operation (e.g., deleting a specific action item within an incident).

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. Given the sibling tools list includes many deletion-related tools (e.g., delete_action_plan, delete_incident, destroy_environmental), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it is appropriate, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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