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. It states 'Destroy' and 'DELETE', implying a destructive mutation, but does not clarify if the deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related records). It also omits details on authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. While it hints at destruction, the lack of explicit warnings or behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 (one sentence) but poorly structured. It front-loads the tool name redundantly and includes technical details (HTTP method and path) without explanatory context. While not verbose, it fails to efficiently convey purpose or usage, making it less helpful than a more informative single sentence could be.

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, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical aspects like irreversible deletion, permissions, or error handling. For a mutation tool with significant impact, this lack of context makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 parameter semantics beyond the schema, as it only repeats the endpoint path with placeholders. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without additional description value.

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 Witness Statement. [Project Management/Incidents] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/witness_statements/{id}' restates the tool name ('Destroy Witness Statement') and adds only the HTTP method and endpoint path. It lacks a clear, specific verb+resource explanation (e.g., 'Permanently delete a witness statement from an incident in a project') and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_witness_statement' (not listed but implied by context) or other deletion tools.

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 (e.g., required permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversibility), or related tools (e.g., 'create_witness_statement' or 'list_witness_statements' from the sibling list). This absence leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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