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 mentions 'PATCH' which implies a partial update/mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it's destructive. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 two parts: the action/resource and the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint '[Core/Equipment] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register' is somewhat redundant for an AI agent and could be trimmed 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 an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'equipment' refers to, what fields are updatable, the expected response, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 the single parameter 'company_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'equipment' entails or what fields can be updated). Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the action ('Update equipment') and resource ('Company'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_equipment_project_v2_0' or 'bulk_update_equipment_company_v2_1', which would require specifying it's for single company equipment updates versus bulk or project-specific updates.

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. With many sibling tools like 'update_equipment_project_v2_0' (project-specific) and 'bulk_update_equipment_company_v2_1' (bulk operations), the description lacks any context about its specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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