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/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate identification numbers, or the response format. The description lacks critical context for a creation 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes the path for context. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more informative about behavior.

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 tool is a creation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'unmanaged equipment' entails, the expected response, error conditions, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero structured coverage, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 each parameter (project_id, company_id, identification_number). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 unmanaged equipment') and the resource ('Project'), specifying it's for unmanaged equipment within a project context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_equipment' or 'create_managed_equipment' by specifying 'unmanaged', but does not explicitly contrast with other equipment-related tools in the sibling list.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing project, or differentiate from other equipment creation tools (e.g., 'create_equipment', 'create_equipment_project_v2_0') that might exist in the sibling list. Usage is implied only by the name and path.

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