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 company File' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are confirmation prompts, or what happens to associated data. The HTTP method 'DELETE' in the description hints at destructiveness but isn't elaborated.

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 phrases. It front-loads the core action ('Delete company File') and includes an API endpoint reference. While efficient, it arguably under-specifies given the tool's destructive nature. No sentences are wasted, but it may be too brief 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the consequences of deletion, error conditions, or return values. The API endpoint hint ('DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/files/{id}') adds some context but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral details. More guidance is needed for safe usage.

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 company', 'ID of the File'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the two required parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't add value here but doesn't need to compensate.

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 company File' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'delete_company_file'. It adds minimal value by specifying the resource ('company File') but lacks specificity about what kind of file or the scope of deletion. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, many of which are also deletion operations.

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, permissions needed, or any context for choosing this deletion method over others. With numerous sibling deletion tools (e.g., delete_project_file, delete_company_folder), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap.

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