Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, what the response contains, or any rate limits. The HTTP method 'POST' is mentioned but adds minimal value beyond the 'Create' verb.

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 technically concise (one main clause plus bracketed context and endpoint), but suffers from under-specification rather than true conciseness. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' is ambiguous and doesn't add clear value. The endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment_categories' provides implementation detail but doesn't help the agent understand when to use the tool.

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?

For a creation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'equipment Category' represents in this system, what happens after creation, or how this differs from related equipment tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively despite the good schema coverage.

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 three parameters (company_id, name, is_active) having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Category' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_equipment_category'. It lacks specificity about what an 'equipment Category' is in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_equipment_category_company_v2_0' or 'create_equipment_category_project_v2_0' that appear in the sibling list. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' is ambiguous and doesn't clarify purpose.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from the many sibling creation tools (like 'create_equipment_type_company_v2_0', 'create_equipment_make_company_v2_0', etc.). The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over similar options.

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