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 indicates an update operation (PATCH) but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The description does not disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires authentication, or has rate limits, making it insufficient for safe invocation.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the API endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of the endpoint might be considered extraneous for tool selection. Overall, it is efficiently structured with minimal waste.

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 an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or necessary permissions. For a mutation tool in a system with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage and understanding of outcomes.

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 input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between IDs or validation rules. However, since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 the action ('Update equipment attachment') and resource ('Project'), which is clear but vague. It does not specify what fields can be updated or the nature of the attachment, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_equipment_attachment_company_v2_0' or 'create_equipment_attachment_project_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about scope and alternatives.

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 includes a REST API endpoint path, which implies context but does not offer explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent without operational context.

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