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' implying a mutation but does not specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented 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 includes redundant API path details ('[Core/Equipment] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register/statuses/{status_id}') that do not add value for an AI agent. It could be more front-loaded with essential usage context.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate correctly.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'status_id' and 'company_id' or the implications of 'is_active'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 status') and the resource ('Company'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_status_of_equipment_company_v2_1' or 'bulk_update_status_of_equipment_company_v2_1', which reduces specificity.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing status ID, and does not mention sibling tools for bulk updates or project-specific updates, 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.