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 the action ('Delete') but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data, or error conditions. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical context but not behavioral clarity.

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 action statement and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the endpoint detail might be more technical than necessary for an agent. There is no wasted verbiage, but it could be more structured for clarity.

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 complexity of a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on the mutation's impact (e.g., irreversible deletion), required permissions, error handling, or return values. For a destructive tool, this gap is significant and could lead to misuse by an 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 ('Unique identifier for the project', 'Id of the equipment'). The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 'Delete an equipment' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('equipment') but lacks details on scope (e.g., permanent vs. soft delete) or context, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_managed_equipment' or 'delete_equipment'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), consequences, or sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_managed_equipment' for multiple deletions. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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