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' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate equipment names, or the response format. The endpoint path suggests it's a POST request, but no further context on rate limits, side effects, or error handling is 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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing the endpoint path. It's front-loaded with the core action, and the endpoint adds technical context without redundancy. However, the inclusion of the endpoint might be slightly verbose for a pure description, though it's not wasteful.

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 tool is a creation/mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on required permissions, expected response, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader system (e.g., relationship to other equipment tools). The endpoint path provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information.

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 both parameters ('project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'equipment_name' as 'Equipment Name'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a piece of Equipment'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_equipment' or 'create_a_new_equipment' by specifying it's for time and material entries within a project context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.

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 minimal guidance, only hinting at usage via the endpoint path ('POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/time_and_material_entries/create_equipment'), which implies it's for equipment creation under time and material entries in a project. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives, or exclusions compared to other equipment-related tools in the sibling list.

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