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 a Crew' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if it cascades to related data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—just two words plus an API path. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the API path ('[Core/Directory] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/crews/{id}') adds noise without explanatory value for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover safety implications, error conditions, or return values. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool responsibly, especially compared to non-destructive siblings.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain why 'lead_party_id', 'name', 'party_ids', or 'equipment_ids' are included in a deletion request or if they affect the operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a Crew'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_a_person' or 'delete_equipment' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_a_single_group') beyond the resource 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 project context), exclusions, or related tools (like 'create_a_new_crew' or 'update_a_crew'). 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.