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 states 'Bulk Update' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial failures, or rate limits. The HTTP method 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this isn't explained. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 but includes redundant information (the API path '[Core/Equipment] PATCH /rest/v2.1/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register/bulk_update') that may not help an AI agent. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but wastes space on implementation details. It could be more structured to emphasize usage over technical endpoints.

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, no output schema, and a mutation tool ('Bulk Update'), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the scope of 'equipment' (e.g., all equipment for a company?), what can be updated, or the expected input format beyond the single parameter. For a bulk operation with potential complexity, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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% (one parameter 'company_id' with a clear description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'equipment' means in context or what data is expected for the bulk update. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance it.

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 Update equipment (Company)' restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. It mentions 'equipment' and 'Company' but doesn't clarify what 'bulk update' entails (e.g., which fields, what scope). Compared to sibling tools like 'bulk_update_status_of_equipment_company_v2_1', it fails to distinguish itself clearly.

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. Sibling tools include many bulk update variants (e.g., 'bulk_update_status_of_equipment_company_v2_1', 'bulk_update_equipment_project_v2_1'), but the description provides no context for choosing among them. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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