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 'DELETE' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether the removal is permanent, if there are side effects, permission requirements beyond the hint, or rate limits. 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 concise with two parts: a clear title-like phrase and an API endpoint. However, the second part is redundant for tool selection and could be considered clutter. It's front-loaded with the purpose but includes extraneous technical details that don't aid the agent in understanding when or how to use the tool effectively.

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 operation (DELETE) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It implies the tool operates on a custom field within a company, but this is already clear from the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Remove Values from Custom Field') and the resource ('Custom Field'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add_values_to_custom_field' by implying an opposite operation, though not explicitly named. It loses a point because it doesn't fully differentiate from other deletion-related tools in the list.

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 mentions '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' which hints at permissions but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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