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 Equipment Category' which implies a mutation operation, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 'Update Equipment Category' and includes API path details, but it is not front-loaded with actionable information. The bracketed '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and path 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment_categories/{id}' add technical context but do not enhance clarity for agent selection, making it somewhat inefficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, leaving the agent poorly informed about how to handle this tool effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (company_id, id, name, is_active) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 Equipment Category' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_equipment_category_company_v2_0' or 'update_equipment_category_project_v2_0', leaving the agent uncertain about its exact scope or differentiation.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., company vs. project scope), or any sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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