Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get equipment projects (Company)' and includes an HTTP endpoint, but fails to describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' and 'page' parameters but not explained), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with a single sentence and includes the HTTP endpoint, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary context for effective use. The structure is front-loaded but too minimal.

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 (a read operation with pagination parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'equipment projects' are, the return format, or how pagination works, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'equipment_id', 'company_id', 'per_page', 'page'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 'Get equipment projects (Company)' restates the tool name 'get_equipment_projects_company_v2_0' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('equipment projects') and scope ('Company'), but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Get' and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_equipment_by_project_project_v2_0' or 'get_all_equipment_company_v2_0', leaving the exact purpose vague.

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, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_equipment_by_project_project_v2_0', 'get_all_equipment_company_v2_0'), the agent is left without direction on selection criteria.

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