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', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires special permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to non-updated fields, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 concise with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It includes an API path '[Project Management/Field Productivity] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment/{id}/update_deleted_equipment_serial_number' which is redundant with the tool name and doesn't aid the agent. The structure is front-loaded 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 the complexity of updating deleted equipment (a non-standard operation), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'deleted equipment' means, whether this is a restoration or metadata update, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 company_id, id, and serial_number. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. However, since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't detract but also doesn't add 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 Deleted Equipment Serial Number' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_equipment' or 'update_equipment_company_v2_0'. While it mentions the resource ('Equipment'), it doesn't clarify what 'Deleted Equipment' means or the specific action beyond 'Update'.

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., that equipment must be deleted), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_equipment' or 'restoring_an_equipment'. The agent is left with no context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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