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. It implies a destructive DELETE operation but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on related data), or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the implied destructiveness.

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 two sentences, but it is not well-structured or front-loaded. The first sentence is a tautology, and the second provides technical details (endpoint path) without clear user-facing value. It avoids unnecessary length but lacks effective communication.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like safety warnings, confirmation requirements, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full implications.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Property Damage ID', 'Incident ID'). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 Property Damage' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the HTTP method (DELETE) and endpoint path, which indicates a deletion operation on a property damage resource within a project/incident context, but lacks a clear, distinct purpose statement beyond what the name implies.

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 does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_property_damage', 'update_property_damage', 'list_property_damages') for context, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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