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 mentions 'restore' but does not clarify if this is a mutation, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or any side effects (e.g., impact on associated data). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Restore equipment'), followed by technical context. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of the API endpoint adds some clutter. Overall, it is efficiently structured with minimal waste.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It does not explain what 'restore' entails (e.g., from a deleted state), the expected outcome, error conditions, or behavioral implications. For a tool that likely modifies data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full 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%, with clear descriptions for 'company_id' and 'ids' parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of ULIDs, batch behavior). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 action ('Restore equipment') and resource scope ('Company'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it does not specify what 'restore' means operationally (e.g., from a deleted/archived state) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'restoring_an_equipment' or 'delete_equipment_company_v2_0', making it somewhat 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., equipment must be deleted first), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'delete_equipment_company_v2_0' or 'restoring_an_equipment', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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