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 implies a mutation ('Set') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites existing data, side effects, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 with technical endpoint details, which is concise but not front-loaded with actionable information. It includes redundant elements like '[Core/Equipment]' and the full POST path, which may not earn their place for an AI agent. However, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's mutation nature (implied by 'Set'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It fails to address key aspects like what 'setting a current project' entails, potential impacts, or response format, leaving 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Equipment Id', 'Unique identifier for the company.'). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, but the schema adequately covers the parameters, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Set current project (Company). [Core/Equipment] POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register/{equipment_id}/project_log' restates the tool name ('Set current project') and adds technical details (endpoint path), but lacks a clear, specific verb+resource explanation. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'set_current_project_project_v2_0' or 'update_current_project_company_v2_0', leaving the purpose vague beyond the name.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'set_current_project_project_v2_0' and 'update_current_project_company_v2_0', the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap.

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