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' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. The POST endpoint hint suggests an HTTP method but adds minimal operational insight.

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 sentence with the core action and endpoint, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, the inclusion of the endpoint details might be slightly redundant if the agent already has structured API info, but it doesn't waste space.

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 details on return values, error conditions, or side effects. The endpoint hint adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information needed by an agent.

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 parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for gaps.

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 states 'Create an equipment Model' which is a clear verb+resource, but it's vague about what an 'equipment Model' entails (e.g., a template or configuration for equipment). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_an_equipment_make' or 'create_an_equipment_type', leaving ambiguity in the hierarchy or relationship.

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 like 'create_an_equipment_make' or 'create_an_equipment_type' is provided. The description includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and a POST endpoint, but these don't offer practical usage context or exclusions for the agent.

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