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 'Bulk Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like permissions required, whether deletions are permanent or reversible, rate limits, or what happens on partial failure. The API path includes 'bulk_destroy' hinting at permanence, but this isn't explicitly explained.

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, efficient sentence that includes the action, resource, context, and API path. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured with separate usage 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 bulk operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, error handling, or output format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it 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 descriptions for 'company_id', 'segment_id', and 'segment_item_ids'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 ('Bulk Delete') and resource ('Company Segment Items'), but it's vague about what segment items are and lacks specificity. It mentions the context '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' and the API path, but doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'bulk_delete_project_segment_items' or explain the scope beyond the name.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or compare to sibling tools (e.g., 'bulk_delete_project_segment_items'). The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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