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 (Project)' and includes an API endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not mention required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., if equipment creation affects project status), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Create equipment (Project)'), followed by the API endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, with every sentence serving a purpose—clarifying the action and providing technical routing. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the endpoint more seamlessly into the description.

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 (23 parameters, 8 required, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks information on the return value format, error conditions, authentication requirements, and how the tool fits into broader workflows. For a creation tool with many parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 23 parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, which implies 'company_id' and 'project_id' are required in the URL. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation, but the description does not compensate with extra context like examples or constraints.

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 ('Project'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the context ('Project') and includes the API endpoint, which adds technical clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_equipment_company_v2_1' or 'create_equipment_project_v2_0', which might cause confusion in selection.

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 (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_equipment_company_v2_1' or 'create_equipment_project_v2_0'. This absence leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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