Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete,' implying a destructive operation, but fails to mention critical details such as required permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or any side effects (e.g., impact on related financial data). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. However, it includes extraneous technical details ('[Construction Financials/Currency Configurations] DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/currency_configuration') that do not aid the AI agent in tool selection or invocation, 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 the complexity of a deletion operation, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not address critical aspects like confirmation requirements, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent poorly equipped to handle this tool effectively in context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'company_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 the resource ('Company Currency Configuration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'delete_project_currency_configuration' or 'update_company_currency_configuration', which would require explicit differentiation to achieve a score of 5.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_currency_configuration_v2_0' or 'update_company_currency_configuration'), leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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