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 mentions 'DELETE' which implies a destructive action, but does not specify consequences (e.g., immediate logout, access revocation, reversibility), permissions needed, or error conditions. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented 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, followed by the HTTP method and endpoint path. It avoids unnecessary words, though the inclusion of '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' adds minor clutter. Overall, it efficiently communicates the essential information 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 destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the outcome (e.g., what 'revoke' entails, success response, error handling), security implications, or system behavior post-invocation. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, 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 both parameters (company_id and person_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 ('Revoke a Person's Login') and the resource ('Person's Login'), with the HTTP method DELETE indicating a destructive operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'enable_a_person_to_log_in' by specifying the opposite action, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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, such as disabling a person's account or other access control methods. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions required, or scenarios where revoking login is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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