Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Update equipment make (Company)' which implies a mutation operation, but does not specify required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. The description lacks critical 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the action, resource, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured. No wasted words, but could benefit from separating functional description 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with four parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what an 'equipment make' is, what the update entails, possible side effects, or response format. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and 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%, with all parameters documented in the schema (make_id, company_id, name, is_active). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path hints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 make (Company). [Core/Equipment] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register_makes/{make_id}' restates the tool name ('update_equipment_make_company_v2_0') and includes an API endpoint, but does not clearly specify what an 'equipment make' is or what fields can be updated beyond the generic 'update' verb. It distinguishes from siblings by context (company vs project), but the purpose remains vague.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing equipment make), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'update_equipment_make_project_v2_0' (implied by sibling list). Usage is implied only by the endpoint structure.

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