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', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or error handling. The endpoint hint suggests it's a PATCH operation, but this isn't elaborated 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 a single sentence with an endpoint detail, which is efficient. However, the endpoint string is technical and could be considered clutter for an AI agent, slightly reducing clarity. It's front-loaded with the core action but includes extraneous API path information.

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 tool is a mutation (update) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the update does (e.g., sets or modifies the current project for equipment), expected outcomes, error conditions, or side effects. For a 3-parameter mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'Equipment Id', 'Unique identifier for the company.', 'The project being logged on the equipment.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 when 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 states 'Update current project (Company)', which provides a verb ('Update') and resource ('current project'), but it's vague about what 'current project' means in context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_current_project_company_v2_0' or 'update_current_project_company_v2_1', leaving ambiguity about scope and version differences.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes a technical endpoint '[Core/Equipment] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register/{equipment_id}/current_project', but this doesn't help an agent understand contextual usage, prerequisites, or differences from sibling tools like the bulk update versions.

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