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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete Company Insurance', which implies a destructive operation, but does not clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects (e.g., cascading impacts). It also omits information about authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and fails to provide adequate behavioral context 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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase and an API path hint, which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to front-load critical information about the tool's purpose and behavior, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but more informative description would be.

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 that this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Company Insurance' entails, the implications of deletion, or what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or error). The lack of behavioral and usage information makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions: 'company_id' as a 'Unique identifier for the company' and 'id' as 'ID'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high and there are only two parameters, the baseline is 4. The description's API path hint reinforces the parameter usage but does not provide additional meaning.

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 Insurance' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks specificity about what 'Company Insurance' refers to (e.g., an insurance record, policy, or document) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_company_vendor_insurance' or 'delete_project_insurance'. The API path hint '[Core/Directory] DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/insurances/{id}' provides some context but is not integrated into a clear purpose statement.

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 (e.g., required permissions), consequences of deletion, or sibling tools like 'delete_company_vendor_insurance' or 'delete_project_insurance' that might be relevant. The agent receives no usage context beyond the tool name.

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