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 equipment' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if it's a soft/hard delete, or any side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The API path suggests it's a destructive operation, but specifics 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete equipment'). The API path inclusion is slightly verbose but provides context without excessive detail. It avoids waste, though it could be more structured with usage notes.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, consequences, error handling, and what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, audit trail). For a tool that permanently removes resources, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('company_id' and 'ids') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('equipment (Company)'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the company context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete tools like 'delete_equipment' or 'bulk_delete_managed_equipment' beyond the API path hint.

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 includes an API path ('[Core/Equipment] DELETE /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register'), which hints at context but doesn't explain prerequisites, permissions, or when to choose this over other deletion tools like project-specific deletions.

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