Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Delete' but does not clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The mention of '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the HTTP method (DELETE) adds minimal context, but critical behavioral details are missing.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The inclusion of the API path and category ('[Project Management/Field Productivity]') is somewhat extraneous but not wasteful. It could be more streamlined but is effectively concise.

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 is a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to address critical aspects like permissions, irreversibility, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions ('Unique identifier for the company', 'ID of the Equipment Category'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('Equipment Category'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from other delete tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_equipment, delete_equipment_category_company_v2_0), leaving the scope ambiguous. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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., permissions), consequences (e.g., data loss), or related tools (e.g., create_equipment_category). This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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