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 'Delete a company office' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated data, or any side effects. The mention of '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hints at permission requirements but isn't explicit about authorization needs. No rate limits, confirmation prompts, or error conditions are described.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which is somewhat redundant but not wasteful. The structure is front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly more concise by omitting the technical endpoint details, but overall efficient.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation, cascading effects), what permissions are needed beyond a hint, or what the response contains. For a 2-parameter mutation tool with significant consequences, more behavioral context is needed.

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 both parameters (id, company_id) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies here.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a company office'), which matches the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact resource type (office) rather than other deletable entities like users, files, or contracts listed in the sibling tools.

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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' which hints at required permissions but doesn't explicitly state prerequisites or compare with other deletion tools (e.g., delete_a_single_project, delete_company_file). No when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios are provided.

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