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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The URL path indicates it's a PATCH operation, but this is not elaborated in the description text.

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 brief but includes extraneous technical details like the URL path and '[Core/Equipment]' which may not be necessary for an AI agent. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update equipment model (Company)'), but the second part adds clutter without clear value, reducing efficiency.

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 lacks information on what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. The URL path provides some context but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and output details needed for a complete understanding.

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 5 parameters (model_id, company_id, name, type_id, is_active) with descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples, but meets the baseline since 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('equipment model (Company)'), which is specific. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the company context, but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_equipment_model_project_v2_0' or 'update_equipment_company_v2_0' beyond the URL path hint.

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 URL path ('[Core/Equipment] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register_models/{model_id}') which hints at the API endpoint but does not offer explicit usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'update_equipment_model_project_v2_0'.

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