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,' implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 brief purpose statement and an API endpoint. However, it's not front-loaded with critical usage info, and the endpoint detail may be redundant for tool selection. It avoids waste 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 complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct usage by an AI 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 both parameters ('model_id' and 'company_id') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('equipment model (Company)'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the context (Company) and includes the API endpoint, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete tools like 'delete_equipment_model_project_v2_0' in the sibling list.

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 mentions '[Core/Equipment]' and an API endpoint, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools like 'delete_equipment_model_project_v2_0' for project context. Usage is implied but not stated.

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