Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to describe that this is a destructive operation (token becomes unusable), potential side effects (e.g., ending user sessions), authentication requirements (client credentials), or error conditions. The mention of 'POST /oauth/revoke' hints at an API endpoint but adds no behavioral insight.

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 overly concise to the point of being under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase, platform category, and HTTP method, but lacks essential information about the tool's purpose and behavior. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary details efficiently.

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 complexity of a token revocation operation (destructive, security-sensitive) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits critical details like effects, authentication needs, error handling, and return values, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool correctly.

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 names (token, client_id, client_secret) and descriptions. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional context about parameter usage or relationships is provided.

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 'Revoke Token. [Platform - Developer Tools/Authentication] POST /oauth/revoke' restates the tool name ('Revoke Token') without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the platform category and HTTP method, but lacks a clear verb-resource combination explaining what 'revoke' entails (e.g., invalidating an OAuth token). This is tautological and minimally informative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid token), consequences of revocation, or related tools for token management. Without annotations or sibling context, the agent has no usage context.

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