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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'Get all equipment' actually returns. For a read operation with 21 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence with the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it may be too minimal given the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, but more context could be helpful.

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's complexity (21 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'equipment' means in this context, what the return format looks like, or how the extensive filtering parameters work together. For a tool with this many options and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more contextual guidance.

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 21 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies here.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all equipment (Company)' which is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('equipment'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_all_equipment_company_v2_1' by including the API endpoint path, but doesn't explicitly differentiate functionality. The description is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 API endpoint but doesn't indicate when this specific endpoint should be used compared to other equipment-related tools in the sibling list. There's no context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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