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. The word 'Destroy' implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but the description does not confirm this, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or error conditions. It lacks critical safety and operational context needed for a deletion 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 a single run-on sentence that combines a tautological phrase with a URL pattern. It is not front-loaded with useful information and wastes space on structural details (the URL) that don't aid understanding. It fails to communicate purpose or usage efficiently.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what an 'Environmental' is, what destruction entails, potential impacts, or return values. Given the high stakes of a delete operation, this description leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the URL pattern, which is already implied by the schema. Since the schema is well-documented, the 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 'Destroy Environmental. [Project Management/Incidents] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/environmentals/{id}' restates the tool name ('Destroy Environmental') without adding meaningful semantic context. It includes a URL pattern, but this doesn't clarify what an 'Environmental' resource is or what destruction entails. The description is tautological and lacks a clear verb+resource explanation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or sibling tools (like 'destroy_injury', 'destroy_near_miss', 'destroy_property_damage', 'destroy_witness_statement' which appear in the sibling list). 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.