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' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The API path suggests it's a REST DELETE operation, but the description lacks behavioral details like confirmation prompts, error handling, or rate limits.

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 only one sentence, but it's not front-loaded with actionable information. It includes the API endpoint path which may be redundant for an agent. While brief, it could be more structured to highlight key information first, such as the destructive nature of the operation.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., if it's permanent, if there's a confirmation, what the response looks like). For a mutation tool with significant impact, more context is needed to guide 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 in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (company_id and id). Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 Equipment' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the API endpoint path but doesn't specify what 'Equipment' refers to or what deletion entails. While the category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' provides some context, the purpose remains vague compared to what could be explicitly stated.

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 (like permissions), consequences of deletion, or any sibling tools that might be related (such as 'bulk_delete_managed_equipment' or 'restoring_an_equipment' from the sibling list). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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