Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Show Equipment') and includes an HTTP GET method, suggesting it's non-destructive, but it doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., pagination details). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP verb.

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 two parts: a purpose statement and an HTTP endpoint. However, it's under-specified—the purpose statement is vague, and the endpoint detail might be redundant if the agent already knows the API structure. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 vague description, this is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters (2 required). The description doesn't explain what 'show' entails (e.g., returns equipment details, supports pagination), leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use it 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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 Equipment. [Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Equipment') and adds a category and HTTP endpoint, but it's vague about what 'show' means—does it retrieve details, list items, or something else? It doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_equipment_by_id_company_v2_0' or 'show_equipment_project', which have similar naming patterns.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'get_equipment_by_id_company_v2_0', 'show_equipment_project'), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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