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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state this or mention any behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The HTTP method 'GET' is mentioned but not explained in terms of agent 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 appropriately concise with a single clear sentence stating the purpose. The additional context in brackets and the endpoint reference are somewhat extraneous but don't significantly detract from clarity. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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?

For a simple list tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, usage guidelines, and output format. The description doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema documentation.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all equipment makes'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on equipment makes rather than models, types, or other equipment-related resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like 'get_all_equipment_makes_company_v2_0' or 'get_all_equipment_makes_project_v2_0' that appear 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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context requirements, or comparison with similar list tools in the sibling set. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone without any explicit when/when-not instructions.

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