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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive DELETE operation ('Remove'), which implies mutation, but fails to specify critical details like required permissions, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. The API endpoint hint suggests it's part of 'Construction Financials/Contracts', but this doesn't add actionable behavioral insight for safe invocation.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of a single sentence that states the core action. The inclusion of the API endpoint in brackets is slightly extraneous but not overly verbose. It is front-loaded with the essential information, making it efficient for quick scanning, though it could be more structured with separate 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 the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, consequences, error handling, or what happens upon success (e.g., confirmation message). For a tool that permanently removes data, this omission is significant and could lead to misuse 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 clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'ID of the Markup'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the existing documentation.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('an existing Markup'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_markups' or 'modify_an_existing_markup', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool. The inclusion of the API endpoint path adds technical context but doesn't enhance the functional clarity for an AI agent.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'delete_markups' or 'modify_an_existing_markup'. Without this context, an AI agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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