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 'Remove segment', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: whether removal is permanent/reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data, or error conditions. The description lacks critical context for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 followed by a bracketed context and HTTP method, which is concise but not optimally structured. The front-loaded sentence is clear, but the appended '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] PUT /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/work_breakdown_structure/patterns/remove_segment' is technical noise that doesn't aid the AI agent. It could be more focused on human-readable guidance.

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 (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., what is returned, confirmation message), error handling, or domain-specific implications (e.g., impact on WBS). For a mutation tool with zero structured coverage, 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 clear parameter descriptions: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'segment_id' as 'Segment ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., what a segment ID refers to, format examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Remove segment') and resource ('from the project pattern'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what a 'segment' or 'project pattern' is in this context (e.g., Work Breakdown Structure patterns), and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_segment_to_the_project_pattern' beyond the obvious verb difference. The description is vague about the domain context.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing segments), consequences of removal, or related operations. The sibling list includes 'add_segment_to_the_project_pattern', but the description doesn't reference it or explain when removal is appropriate versus other modifications.

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