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 mentions 'DELETE' in the API path, implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 states the tool's purpose and includes the API endpoint, which is useful for context. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly stating it's for removing multiple memberships at once, as the 'bulk' prefix is somewhat implied.

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), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success/failure responses, or prerequisites, leaving the agent poorly equipped to handle this tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

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' and 'project_id', though 'party_ids' has a minimal description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'party_ids' represents (e.g., user IDs, group IDs) or format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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 Remove') and resource ('Project Memberships'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_remove_company_users_from_projects_v2_0' or 'remove_a_user_from_the_project', which handle similar removal operations but for different entities or scopes.

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. With many sibling tools involving removal or bulk operations (e.g., 'bulk_remove_company_users_from_projects_v2_0', 'remove_a_user_from_the_project'), the agent is left without explicit context for selection, relying solely on the tool name and parameters.

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