Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Delete Markups' and includes a DELETE HTTP method, implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap 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 a single sentence with the tool name, a category tag, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded but includes redundant information (restating the name) and the API endpoint adds clutter without clear value for an AI agent. It could be more concise by focusing on actionable guidance.

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 (destructive operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what markups are, the impact of deletion, expected response, or error conditions, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 all parameters (company_id, project_id, viewer_doc_id, markups) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, such as what 'markups' array contains or format details. 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 'Delete Markups. [Project Management/Document Markup] DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/viewer_documents/{viewer_doc_id}/markups' restates the tool name ('Delete Markups') and adds a category tag and API endpoint, but does not specify what 'markups' are or clarify the action beyond the name. It lacks a specific verb-resource distinction from siblings like 'remove_an_existing_markup' or 'modify_markups', making it vague in purpose.

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, conditions, or sibling tools like 'remove_an_existing_markup' or 'modify_markups', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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