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 only states 'Search all equipment' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, supports pagination, or has rate limits. The endpoint path hints at a POST request but doesn't clarify implications.

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 with two parts: a brief purpose statement and endpoint details. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—every sentence earns its place but leaves gaps. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or how the search functionality works. For a search tool with many filters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how filters interact or the search_keyword usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search all equipment' restates the tool name and title (which is null), making it tautological. It adds minimal context with '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the endpoint path, but doesn't specify what 'search' means (e.g., filtering, keyword search, pagination) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search_all_equipment_project'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions the endpoint path but doesn't explain its context (e.g., company-scoped search vs. project-scoped). With sibling tools like 'search_all_equipment_project', the agent lacks explicit differentiation.

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