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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' (a write operation) and includes the HTTP method 'POST', which implies mutation. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains (e.g., the created equipment make ID). 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, efficient sentence that includes the core action, domain context, and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Create an equipment make'), and the additional details are relevant. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'equipment make' is in this context, what the tool returns (e.g., the created object or just a success status), or any error conditions. For a creation tool, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively beyond the basic parameters.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (company_id, name, is_active). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints for 'name' or default behavior for 'is_active'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('an equipment make'), which directly matches the tool name. It specifies the domain context ('Project Management/Field Productivity') and HTTP method ('POST'), providing a clear purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_an_equipment_model' or 'create_an_equipment_type', which have similar naming patterns.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a company_id), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_equipment_make_company_v2_0' or 'create_equipment_make_project_v2_0', which appear to be similar. Without usage context, the agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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