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 mentions 'GET' and includes a URL path, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the core action and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose, though it could be more structured with additional context. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 (24 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return values, pagination behavior, error handling, or other operational details needed for effective use, leaving the agent with incomplete 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 fully documents all 24 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as usage examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 states the verb 'Get' and resource 'all equipment (Company)', which clarifies the basic action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_equipment_company_v2_0' or 'search_all_equipment_company', leaving the purpose somewhat vague regarding versioning or scope distinctions.

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 description lacks context about its specific use case, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools, offering no help in tool selection.

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