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' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate status names, whether it's idempotent, or what the response contains. The API endpoint path suggests it's a POST operation, but no further behavioral context 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and includes the API endpoint. The endpoint path provides useful technical context without being verbose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the human-readable purpose from the technical reference.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'equipment status' represents in the domain, what happens after creation, whether there are limits on statuses per company, or what the response looks like. The API endpoint provides some context but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and domain 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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'type' enum values relate to 'is_active'), nor provides examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 status (Company)'), and includes the API endpoint path which reinforces the scope. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Company' context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'create_equipment_status_project_v2_0' (if it exists).

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 'Company' context but doesn't explain when to choose company-level vs project-level equipment status creation, nor does it mention prerequisites like required permissions or existing equipment registers.

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