Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Destroy' which implies permanent deletion, but doesn't specify if this is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to related data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the destructive nature implied by the name.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that state the action and provide the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured with clearer separation of purpose from technical details.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'destroy' means operationally, what permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, or what the response contains. The API path provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral information.

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 three parameters (project_id, id, incident_id) with their purposes. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 states 'Destroy Injury' which clearly indicates a destructive action on an injury resource, but it's somewhat vague about the exact operation. It mentions the API endpoint path which provides additional context, but doesn't fully distinguish from sibling tools beyond the specific resource type.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions required, or what happens after destruction. The API path context helps somewhat, but there's no explicit usage guidance.

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