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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment/{id}/change_history' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or what constitutes 'change history' (e.g., audit logs, modifications). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 with three distinct elements: tool name, context tag, and endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint detail could be considered extraneous but provides implementation context. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 read operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and action but lacks details about return format (list of changes? paginated?), what 'change history' includes, or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for agent 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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the endpoint path which includes company_id and id parameters, but this doesn't provide additional semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Show Equipment Change History' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_equipment_change_history_company_v2_0' or 'change_history', leaving ambiguity about scope or context. The description is adequate but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' which gives some context but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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