Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Bulk Delete' which implies destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletions are permanent/reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. The HTTP method (DELETE) is mentioned but without context about safety or side effects.

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 brief but includes redundant information. The first sentence restates the tool name, while the HTTP endpoint detail adds technical context but doesn't help the agent understand usage. It's front-loaded with the core action but could be more efficiently structured to emphasize key information for the agent.

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?

For a destructive bulk operation with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral implications, success/failure responses, error conditions, or operational constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively in a production environment.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (project_id, segment_id, segment_item_ids). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 ('Bulk Delete') and resource ('Project Segment Items'), with additional context in brackets ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure'). It distinguishes from single-item deletions by specifying 'bulk' operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar bulk deletion tools in the sibling 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or compare with other deletion tools in the sibling list (like 'bulk_delete_company_segment_items' or 'delete_project_segment_item'). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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