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 mentions 'bulk restore' in the URL path, implying a mutation operation (restoring items), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., restoring deleted equipment), rate limits, or response format. The HTTP method 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this isn't explained.

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 concise with three elements: tool name, category, and HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes extraneous details like the full URL path which doesn't add value for an AI agent. Overall, it's efficient but could be more streamlined by omitting the URL.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks information on what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., restoring deleted equipment, fetching data), expected outcomes, error conditions, or any behavioral context. The tool has 2 parameters, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing output details, leaving significant gaps.

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 'company_id' and 'managed_equipment_ids'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format details for IDs or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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 'Bulk Retrieve Managed Equipment' states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('Managed Equipment'), but it's vague about what 'retrieve' means in this context (e.g., restore from deletion, fetch data). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'bulk_delete_managed_equipment' or 'bulk_restore' tools, leaving ambiguity.

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 includes a category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and HTTP method 'PATCH', but these don't clarify usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_managed_equipment' exist, but no comparison is made.

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