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' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are side effects (like cascading deletions), or what happens on success/failure. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic action verb.

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?

While technically concise with just one sentence, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It wastes characters on the API path (which isn't needed for agent understanding) while failing to provide essential context about what's being deleted. The bracketed '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' adds minor domain context but doesn't compensate for the lack of actual usage information.

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?

This is a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description fails to address critical context: it doesn't explain what a 'segment item' is, whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are needed, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this description is completely inadequate.

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 all three parameters (company_id, segment_id, id) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 Segment Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' and the API path, but doesn't specify what a 'segment item' is or what deletion entails. While the API path provides some context, the purpose remains vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 are sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_company_segment_items' and 'delete_project_segment_item' that handle similar operations, but the description doesn't differentiate this single-item deletion from bulk operations or project-level deletions. No prerequisites, warnings, or usage context are mentioned.

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