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. It states 'Delete Cost Items' which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a bulk operation (suggested by 'bulk_destroy' in the endpoint), permissions required, irreversible effects, or error handling. The API endpoint adds technical context but not operational 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 with two parts: a functional statement and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action, though the endpoint detail may be extraneous for an AI agent. No wasted sentences, but could be more structured 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what 'Cost Items' are, how deletion is performed (e.g., bulk by criteria?), confirmation requirements, or expected outcomes. The API endpoint does not compensate for these gaps.

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 the single parameter 'company_id' well-described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how cost items are selected for deletion or if additional filtering is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states the tool deletes cost items, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools (e.g., delete_cost_item_v2_0, bulk_delete_materials) in terms of scope or method, and the inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail but not functional differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions '[Preconstruction/Cost Catalog]' which hints at a domain context, but it does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling deletion tools (e.g., bulk_delete_materials, delete_cost_item_v2_0).

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