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 equipment' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate equipment_id, or what the response contains. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned but without context on error handling or side effects.

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 extremely concise - just 4 words plus an API endpoint reference. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the endpoint path included adds some noise without explanatory value for an AI agent.

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 18 parameters (7 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'equipment' represents in this system, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to other equipment tools. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without additional context.

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%, so the schema already documents all 18 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'Create equipment' statement. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 (Company)' states the action (Create) and resource (equipment), but is vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify what 'equipment' means in this domain or distinguish it from similar tools like 'create_equipment_project_v2_0' or 'create_a_new_equipment' in the sibling list.

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. The sibling list includes similar tools like 'create_equipment_project_v2_0' and 'create_a_new_equipment', but the description provides no differentiation or context for choosing this specific company-level creation tool.

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