Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Remove') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that efficiently states the action and includes the API endpoint, which is useful for context. However, it could be more front-loaded with key usage information rather than ending with 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'remove current project' entails operationally, what happens to associated data, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity implied by the path ('/equipment_register/{equipment_id}/current_project'), more context is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (equipment_id, project_id, company_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Project'), but it's vague about what 'current project' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'remove_current_project_company_v2_0' or 'remove_current_project_project_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about version differences.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differences from similar tools like 'remove_current_project_project_v2_0' or 'bulk_remove_current_project_project_v2_1', 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.