Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Update'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error handling. The technical endpoint hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this isn't explicitly stated or explained. For a mutation tool with 23 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. However, the technical endpoint details ('[Core/Equipment] PATCH /rest/v2.1/...') add clutter without clear user value. The single sentence is efficient but could be more focused on user-facing information rather than implementation 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?

For a complex mutation tool with 23 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (partial vs. full), success/failure behavior, or return values. The technical endpoint hint doesn't compensate for missing operational context needed for safe invocation.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path variables (company_id, project_id, equipment_id). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. 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 states the action ('Update equipment') and resource ('Project'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. It includes technical endpoint details ('PATCH /rest/v2.1/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/equipment_register/{equipment_id}') which adds some specificity but doesn't clearly differentiate from similar update tools like 'update_equipment_company_v2_1' or 'bulk_update_equipment_company_v2_1' in the sibling list.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools including other equipment update operations (e.g., 'update_equipment_company_v2_1', 'bulk_update_equipment_company_v2_1'), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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