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 mentions 'DELETE' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on users with that role), or error conditions. The description is minimal and misses critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Remove Role from Project'). It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which is relevant but could be considered extraneous. However, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and gets straight to the point in a single sentence.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation with 3 required parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what happens after removal, return values, error handling, or security requirements. For a mutation tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves significant gaps for the 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 detailed descriptions for company_id, project_id, and role_id in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 Role from Project') and the resource ('Role'), which matches the tool name. It specifies the operation via the HTTP method DELETE, indicating a deletion action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_role_to_project' or 'delete_project_role', though the context implies it's for removing a role from a specific project.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., role must exist), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'add_role_to_project' or 'delete_project_role'. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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