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. It states 'Restoring an equipment' which implies a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what 'restoring' entails (e.g., from deleted state), or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context.

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 under-specified, not concise. It consists of a single tautological phrase followed by a category and endpoint, which adds no value. The structure is poor as it fails to front-load useful information, wasting space on redundant details.

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 (16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'restoring' means, the expected outcome, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. For a mutation tool with many parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 fully documents all 16 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields like 'project_id' and 'current_project_id'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter 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 'Restoring an equipment' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'restore_equipment_company_v2_0' or 'restore_a_time_and_material_entry', leaving the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., what state the equipment must be in), or sibling tools, offering no usage instructions.

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