Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set current project' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what 'current project' means in context, whether it's reversible, or what side effects occur. The API path hint suggests it logs equipment registration, but this isn't explained.

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 rather than concise. The single phrase 'Set current project (Project)' is incomplete, and the appended API path '[Core/Equipment] POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/equipment_register/{equipment_id}/project_log' is technical noise that doesn't aid understanding. The structure lacks front-loaded clarity.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'setting the current project' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or how it interacts with equipment registration. The complexity of the implied operation (linking equipment to projects via logs) warrants more explanation than provided.

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 the three required parameters (equipment_id, project_id, company_id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 (Project)' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal clarification. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition beyond what's implied by the name, and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'set_current_project_company_v2_0' or 'update_current_project_project_v2_0'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_current_project_company_v2_0' or 'bulk_update_current_project_project_v2_0', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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