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, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the core action and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key information, though it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details.

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 (21 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a mutation tool with many parameters, more completeness is needed to guide the agent 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 documents all 21 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the HTTP method and path structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 the resource ('Company'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_equipment_company_v2_0' or 'update_equipment_project_v2_1', which might cause confusion about version or scope 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'update_equipment_company_v2_0', 'update_equipment_project_v2_1'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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