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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update an equipment' which implies a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, error handling, or response format. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Field Productivity] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/managed_equipment/{id}' adds API context but does not compensate for the lack of operational guidance.

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 action ('Update an equipment'), but includes extraneous API path and category information ('[Project Management/Field Productivity] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/managed_equipment/{id}') that does not aid the AI agent in tool selection or invocation. While concise, the structure could be more focused on user-facing guidance rather than implementation details.

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 the complexity (16 parameters, mutation operation) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update behavior, required fields beyond the schema, potential side effects, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively in a real-world context.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Status', 'The type of ownership'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 'Update an equipment' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('equipment') but lacks details about what fields can be updated or the scope of the update, failing to distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'update_equipment' or 'bulk_update_equipment'.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., create_an_equipment, delete_an_equipment), leaving the agent with no context for appropriate tool selection.

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