Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get unmanaged equipment (Project)' and includes an API endpoint, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is (e.g., paginated list), or any rate limits. The mention of 'GET' in the endpoint implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated, and no other behavioral traits are described.

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 two parts: a brief purpose statement and an API endpoint. However, the purpose statement is vague and redundant with the name, and the API endpoint adds technical detail without explanatory value for an AI agent. While it's not overly verbose, it fails to front-load useful information, making it inefficient in conveying the tool's intent and usage.

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 of 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'unmanaged equipment' entails, how the output is structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. The high parameter count and lack of output schema mean the description should provide more context to guide the agent, but it falls short, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'project_id', 'company_id', 'search', 'filters__updated_at', 'page', 'per_page', 'view'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the existing documentation.

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 unmanaged equipment (Project)' restates the tool name 'get_unmanaged_equipment_project_v2_0' without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_all_equipment_project' or 'get_equipment_by_project_project_v2_0'. The inclusion of the API endpoint '[Core/Equipment] GET /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/equipment_register/equipment_unmanaged' is technical but doesn't explain what 'unmanaged equipment' means or how this tool differs from others.

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 any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools, leaving the agent with no information on appropriate usage scenarios. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for listing, filtering, or retrieving specific unmanaged equipment, nor does it reference other equipment-related tools in the sibling list.

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