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 the action is a 'DELETE' operation, implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the removal is reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on group membership or permissions), or error conditions (e.g., if the person is not in the group). The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which is efficient. However, the bracketed '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' adds minor clutter without clear utility. Overall, it is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more polished.

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 is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as required permissions, potential side effects, success/error response formats, or idempotency. For a DELETE operation with three required parameters, more behavioral and operational details are needed to guide safe usage.

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., company_id accepts Procore ID or legacy UUID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Since the schema is comprehensive, 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 clearly states the action ('Remove a Person from a Group') and specifies the resource (person, group, company). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_a_user_from_the_project' or 'remove_tag_instance_from_person', which target different resources. However, the verb 'Remove' is unambiguous for the given resource combination.

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., the person must be in the group), exclusions, or related tools like 'add_person_to_a_group' for the inverse operation. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context or alternatives provided.

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