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 'Show an equipment model' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'show'), potential authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (despite page/per_page parameters). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 but under-specified—it's a single sentence that wastes space on a bracketed category and HTTP method ('[Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment_models/{id}'), which doesn't aid an AI agent. It lacks front-loaded useful information, though it's not verbose.

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, no output schema, and a 4-parameter tool with pagination, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, provide usage context, or describe return values (e.g., what an 'equipment model' object contains). This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable invocation.

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 (id, company_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides adequate detail, meeting the baseline score of 3 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 'Show an equipment model' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination (e.g., 'Retrieve details of a specific equipment model by ID') and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'show_an_equipment_make' or 'show_an_equipment_type'.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing company_id and id), context (e.g., for viewing details vs. listing models), or related tools like 'get_all_equipment_models_company_v2_0' for listing multiple models.

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