Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'DELETE' in the URL, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify side effects (e.g., whether this is reversible, if it affects project data, or permission requirements). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core action, though it includes an API endpoint detail that may be redundant. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the structure could be improved by separating the action from technical details.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'DELETE'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the outcome (e.g., what 'remove' entails, success response, or error handling), leaving significant gaps for safe agent invocation.

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 parameter descriptions ('Equipment Id', 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient, so 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 states the action ('Remove current project') and resource ('Company'), but it's vague about what 'current project' means in this context (e.g., disassociating equipment from a project). It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_current_project_company_v2_1' or 'remove_current_project_project_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 (e.g., equipment must be associated with a project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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