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', implying a mutation operation, but does not specify what is updated, permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges data), or error conditions. The API endpoint path hints at a PATCH method, suggesting partial updates, but this is not explained. The description lacks critical behavioral details 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 concise with a single sentence, but it is not front-loaded with essential information. It starts with a vague purpose and includes an API endpoint that may be redundant for an AI agent. While brief, it could be more structured to prioritize clarity over technical details like the endpoint path.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the update entails, what data is returned, or error handling. For a tool that modifies equipment in a project context, more context is needed to guide safe and correct usage, especially without annotations to cover behavioral aspects.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'project_id' and 'company_id'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, as it does not mention these parameters or their roles. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately defines parameters without needing description supplementation.

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 (Project)' restates the tool name 'update_equipment_project_v2_0' and adds minimal context with '(Project)'. It specifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'equipment', but lacks specificity about what aspects of equipment are updated (e.g., status, details, assignments) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_equipment_company_v2_0' or 'update_status_of_equipment_project_v2_1'. The inclusion of the API endpoint path adds technical detail but not functional clarity.

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 (e.g., needing project and company IDs), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'update_equipment_company_v2_0' (for company-level updates) or 'update_status_of_equipment_project_v2_1' (for status-specific updates). The agent is left without context for tool selection.

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