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,' implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related equipment). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Delete Managed Equipment Attachment'). It includes a category tag ('[Project Management/Field Productivity]') and the API endpoint, which adds context without unnecessary verbosity. However, the endpoint detail might be overly technical for some users.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on success/failure behavior, return values, error conditions, or confirmation requirements. Given the complexity of a delete operation in a project management context, more contextual details are needed.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description does not add extra semantic details, but with full schema coverage, the baseline is 3. Since it's a simple delete operation with well-documented IDs, a 4 is appropriate as no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 ('Managed Equipment Attachment'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_managed_equipment_attachment' or other delete operations, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the attachment must exist or if permissions are required, and does not mention sibling tools like bulk delete options.

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