Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether this is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. The HTTP method (DELETE) is shown but not explained in behavioral terms.

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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete equipment make') and includes the endpoint path for technical context. However, the bracketed '[Core/Equipment]' adds minimal value without explanation, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'equipment make' is in this context, what the consequences of deletion are, whether there are validation rules, or what the response looks like. The HTTP endpoint provides technical context but not operational guidance.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (make_id and company_id are self-explanatory). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 make (Company)'), with the HTTP method and endpoint path providing additional specificity. It distinguishes the tool's scope by specifying it operates at the company level, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_equipment_make_project_v2_0'.

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 '[Core/Equipment]' but doesn't explain what this means or provide any context about prerequisites, dependencies, or when this deletion operation is appropriate versus other deletion tools in the sibling list.

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