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 'Create a new equipment' which implies a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The POST endpoint hint is minimal and doesn't add meaningful context beyond the action.

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 extremely concise: 'Create a new equipment. [Project Management/Field Productivity] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/managed_equipment'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the additional context is minimal and non-redundant. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a creation tool with many parameters and no structured safety hints, the description should provide more context about the operation's impact and expected outcomes.

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 all 15 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Create a new equipment' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('equipment'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_equipment' or 'create_a_piece_of_equipment', which appear to serve similar functions, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and a POST endpoint, but this is technical context rather than usage instructions. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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