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. It fails to describe any behavioral traits: it does not indicate if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, if it supports pagination (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds no value beyond the minimal verb 'List'.

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—only two words plus a technical reference. It is front-loaded with the core action 'List equipment', but lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It avoids redundancy but sacrifices clarity.

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 list operation with pagination and project context), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral expectations. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide context on usage, making it inadequate for an AI agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.

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%, with clear descriptions for project_id, page, and per_page. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain how these parameters affect the listing (e.g., pagination defaults, project context). However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, 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 'List equipment' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'list_equipment'. It adds no specificity about what 'equipment' refers to (e.g., construction equipment, IT assets) or the scope of the listing. While it includes a technical reference '[Core/Project] GET /rest/v1.0/equipment', this does not clarify the purpose for an AI agent. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools, many of which are also list operations (e.g., list_equipment_logs, list_equipment_maintenance_logs).

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 (e.g., project context), exclusions, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific needs (e.g., filtered searches). The technical reference '[Core/Project]' hints at context but is ambiguous and not actionable for an AI agent.

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