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 (Project)' which implies a write/mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The URL path hints at a REST API endpoint but doesn't clarify behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent or what happens on failure.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. It includes a URL path that doesn't aid understanding for an AI agent, and the parenthetical '(Project)' is redundant with the tool name. While concise, it fails to front-load useful information, making it less effective than it could be.

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 (19 parameters, 8 required, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the creation context, required permissions, what 'equipment' entails in this system, or the expected outcome. For a mutation tool with many parameters, more contextual guidance is needed.

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 input schema fully documents all 19 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without additional value.

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 (Project). [Core/Equipment] POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/equipment_register' is tautological—it restates the tool name 'create_equipment_project_v2_0' without adding meaningful context. It includes a URL path but lacks a clear, specific explanation of what the tool does beyond the obvious 'create equipment'.

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 sibling tool list includes many other equipment-related tools (e.g., 'create_equipment_company_v2_0', 'create_equipment_project_v2_1', 'update_equipment_project_v2_0'), but the description offers no differentiation or context for selection.

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