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 states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on partial updates. The HTTP method (PATCH) hints at partial updates, but this is not explained in the description text.

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. The inclusion of the category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment_makes/{id}' adds context without verbosity, though these details might be more relevant in structured fields.

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 mutation nature (update tool), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a tool that modifies data, more context on safety and outcomes is needed to be fully helpful.

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 four parameters (company_id, id, name, is_active). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or business rules. The baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an equipment make'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_an_equipment_make' and 'delete_an_equipment_make' by specifying an update operation. However, it lacks specificity about what fields can be updated beyond the generic term.

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 an existing equipment make ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_equipment_make_company_v2_0' or 'update_equipment_make_project_v2_0', leaving usage context unclear.

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