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' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or returns confirmation. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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 a single sentence stating the action, followed by a category and endpoint path. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the endpoint path adds minimal value for an AI agent and could be considered slightly verbose.

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 fails to address critical aspects like what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling), permissions required, or irreversible consequences, leaving the agent under-informed for safe operation.

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' and 'company_id') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying which 'id' refers to the equipment model. 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 ('an equipment model'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_an_equipment' or 'delete_an_equipment_make', which target different resources, so it's not fully distinct.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks any context about when deletion is appropriate or what might happen after deletion, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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