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' and 'bulk_destroy', which implies a destructive, irreversible operation. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated data. The description is minimal and leaves key safety concerns unaddressed.

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 brief purpose statement and the API endpoint. However, it's not front-loaded with actionable information for an AI agent—the API path is technical noise. While efficient, it lacks structure that would help an agent understand context or usage, making it merely adequate.

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 2 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context: no output information, no error handling, no confirmation of success, and no safety warnings. For a high-stakes deletion tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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: 'company_id' as a unique identifier and 'managed_equipment_ids' as an array of IDs for bulk destroy. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Bulk Delete Managed Equipment' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. While it specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('Managed Equipment'), it lacks specificity about what 'bulk' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_managed_equipment_attachment' or 'bulk_delete_materials'. The API path adds technical detail but doesn't clarify the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing company_id), when bulk deletion is appropriate versus single deletions, or any warnings about destructive operations. The sibling list includes many bulk operations, but no differentiation is provided.

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