Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but fails to specify if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious implication of deletion.

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 a single sentence that is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on the API endpoint path '[Project Management/Inspections] DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/inspection_templates/{inspection_template_id}/items/{id}', which does not aid the AI agent in tool selection or invocation, instead of providing meaningful guidance.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical context such as confirmation requirements, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool with three required parameters.

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 clear parameter definitions for company_id, inspection_template_id, and id. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the 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 Company Inspection Template Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It lacks a specific verb or resource context beyond the name, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools or explain what 'item' refers to in the inspection template.

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 does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or sibling tools like 'delete_company_inspection_template_item_reference' or 'delete_project_inspection_template_item_reference', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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