Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a search operation (implied read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (page/per_page parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on empty results. The POST method hint suggests mutation, but without annotations, this creates ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states the action and resource. The endpoint path adds technical context but doesn't clutter the core message. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, though could be more front-loaded with usage context.

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 21 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, pagination, or error handling. For a complex search tool with rich filtering options, more contextual information is needed to guide effective use.

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 21 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the endpoint path implying 'project_id' is required. 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 clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('all equipment'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_all_equipment_company' by specifying 'project' context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other project-specific search tools in the 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the project context implicitly via the endpoint path, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools like 'get_all_equipment_project' or 'search_all_equipment_company' for context.

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