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 implies a destructive operation ('Remove'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, or if it affects related data. The mention of 'DELETE' in the URL hints at a mutation, but no further details are given.

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, but includes redundant technical details ('[Core/Equipment] DELETE /rest/v2.1/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register/{equipment_id}/current_project') that don't add value for an AI agent. It could be more concise by omitting the URL, but it's not overly verbose.

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 or output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'current project' entails, the impact of removal, error conditions, or return values. This leaves significant gaps for safe and correct tool 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 in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'company_id' and 'equipment_id' or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states the action ('Remove current project') and resource ('Company'), but it's vague about what 'current project' means in this context (e.g., a project association with equipment). It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_current_project_company_v2_0' or 'remove_current_project_project_v2_1', 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, such as needing an existing project association, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'remove_current_project_company_v2_0' or 'bulk_remove_current_project_project_v2_1' for comparison.

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