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 an equipment model' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full (PATCH method hint), idempotency, or error handling. The HTTP method (PATCH) and endpoint path are included but not explained in terms of behavior.

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 purpose. However, it includes extraneous details like '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the endpoint path 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment_models/{id}', which may not add value for an AI agent and could be considered clutter. It is concise but not optimally structured for clarity.

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 of a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what the update entails (e.g., which fields can be modified), the expected response, or error conditions. The endpoint path provides some context but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and output information.

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 well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'ID of the company', 'Name of the equipment model'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 model'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_an_equipment_make' or 'update_an_equipment_type', which are similar update operations on related equipment entities.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., when an equipment model needs updating), or exclusions. The sibling list includes many update tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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