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 fails to disclose that this is a read-only GET operation (implied by 'show' but not explicit), doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the vague verb 'show'.

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 overly concise to the point of being underspecified. 'Show equipment.' is a fragment, not a complete sentence. The bracketed category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/managed_equipment/{id}' are useful but poorly integrated. It's front-loaded with minimal information 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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'equipment' entails (managed equipment), the return format, or pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters). For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the resource and response.

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., 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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.' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what 'equipment' means (managed equipment) and what 'show' entails (retrieve details). It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_equipment_by_id_project_v2_1' or 'show_equipment_company', leaving the agent unclear about its exact 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id and id), nor does it differentiate it from similar sibling tools (e.g., 'get_equipment_by_id_project_v2_1', 'show_equipment_company'). The agent must infer usage from the input schema alone.

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