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 states 'Destroy task item', which implies a destructive mutation, but does not clarify if this is permanent, irreversible, or requires specific permissions. The API endpoint hint suggests a DELETE operation, but behavioral details like side effects, error conditions, or confirmation requirements are missing. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied mutation.

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 parts: 'Destroy task item.' and the API endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise—it lacks necessary context for safe use. The structure is front-loaded with the action but does not follow through with critical details. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential information, making it minimally adequate but insufficient.

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 does not address the implications of 'destroy', such as permanence, dependencies, or error handling. For a mutation tool with significant risk, the description should include warnings, prerequisites, or outcome details. The current text leaves too many gaps for safe and effective use.

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: 'id' as 'Task Item ID' and 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project.' The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining why both parameters are required or their interrelationship. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 task item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the API endpoint '[Core/Tasks] DELETE /rest/v1.0/task_items/{id}', which implies deletion, but does not clarify what 'destroy' entails (e.g., permanent deletion vs. archiving) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_task' or 'bulk_delete_project_tasks_v2_0_company'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb.

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, such as needing a specific project context, or compare it to sibling deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_task', 'bulk_delete_project_tasks_v2_0_company'). There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate, leading to potential misuse.

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