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 Equipment' and implies a POST operation, indicating a write action, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate serial numbers, or the response format. The endpoint hint suggests it's company-scoped, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 only three elements: the tautological purpose, a category tag, and the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action but wastes space on redundant naming. The structure is clear, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 lacks essential context for a creation tool: what 'Equipment' represents, typical use cases, error handling, or response expectations. The endpoint provides some scope, but overall, it leaves the agent under-informed for proper invocation.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the endpoint's path parameter 'company_id'. Since the schema already fully documents all 15 parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate 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 'Create Equipment' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment', but does not specify what 'Equipment' entails or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_a_new_equipment' or 'create_a_piece_of_equipment'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_new_equipment', 'create_a_piece_of_equipment') for comparison. It fails to help the agent decide when this specific creation tool is appropriate.

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