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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment_makes/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state it's safe (non-destructive), describe authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The inclusion of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') suggests list-like behavior, but this isn't clarified. Without annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Show an equipment make.'), followed by context in brackets and the API endpoint. It wastes no words, though the bracketed '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' adds minimal value. The structure is efficient, but could be more polished.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'equipment make' is, what data is returned, or how pagination works with a single ID. For a tool with 4 parameters and complex sibling context, more completeness 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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting. However, it doesn't explain why pagination parameters exist for a tool that seems to fetch a single item by ID, which could confuse the agent.

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 'Show an equipment make' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('equipment make'), but it's vague about what 'show' means—does it retrieve details, list items, or display something? It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_an_equipment_model' or 'show_an_equipment_category', which have similar naming patterns, leaving ambiguity in purpose.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'show_an_equipment_model', 'show_an_equipment_category'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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