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 equipment' which implies a write operation, but fails to mention critical details like required authentication, potential side effects (e.g., data persistence), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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—a single sentence that includes the action, resource, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 (21 parameters, 7 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or any behavioral nuances like validation rules for parameters. For a creation tool with many inputs, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company' for company_id). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate for gaps but doesn't need to.

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 equipment') and the resource ('Company'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_equipment_company_v2_0' or 'create_equipment_project_v2_1', which have similar names but potentially different scopes or versions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or company context, and does not mention any sibling tools or scenarios where this specific version (v2.1) is appropriate over others.

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