Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment/{id}/restore' which implies a mutation (restoring equipment), but doesn't clarify permissions needed, side effects, or what 'restore' actually does. The description lacks critical behavioral context like whether this is idempotent, what happens to associated data, or error conditions.

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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single line 'Retrieve Equipment. [Project Management/Field Productivity] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment/{id}/restore' wastes space on redundant information (tool name restated) and includes irrelevant technical details (HTTP method and path) without explaining their significance. The structure doesn't front-load actionable information.

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 mutation tool (PATCH restore) with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'restore' means, what state the equipment returns to, or what the operation accomplishes. The agent cannot understand the tool's purpose or effects from this description alone, despite the comprehensive parameter schema.

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 documents all 16 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete schema 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 'Retrieve Equipment' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'retrieve' means in this context (restore from deletion? fetch details?), nor does it mention the 'restore' action indicated in the URL path. The description fails to distinguish this tool from other equipment-related tools 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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what makes this tool different from other equipment operations (like 'restore_equipment_company_v2_0' or 'bulk_retrieve_managed_equipment' in the sibling list). The agent receives no usage direction.

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