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' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned, but no additional context about the creation process or response format is given.

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 a single sentence that includes the core action and endpoint. It's front-loaded with the key information ('Create equipment make (Company)'), though the endpoint details could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. There's no wasted text, but it lacks structural elements like bullet points or examples.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or success criteria. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly and interpret results, making it inadequate for full contextual awareness.

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 descriptions for company_id, name, and is_active. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate with any extra insights.

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') and resource ('equipment make (Company)'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_equipment_make_project_v2_0' by specifying the company context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other create operations like 'create_an_equipment_make' or 'create_equipment_make_project_v2_0'.

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 mentions the company context but doesn't explain prerequisites, such as needing a valid company_id, or when to choose this over project-specific equipment make creation tools. No explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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