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. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, error handling, or side effects. The inclusion of the API endpoint '[Core/Equipment] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/equipment_register/equipment_unmanaged/{equipment_id}' hints at a PATCH operation, but this is not explained. The description is minimal and misses 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 brief with two parts: a functional statement and an API endpoint. However, the endpoint detail is verbose and may not be necessary for an AI agent, as it repeats information inferable from the tool name. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but the second part adds clutter without clear value. It is concise but includes extraneous 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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'unmanaged equipment' means, what fields can be updated (only 'is_active' is implied), the expected response, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with no structured support, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and correct usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters (equipment_id, project_id, company_id, is_active) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it does not explain the purpose of 'is_active' or relationships between IDs. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 unmanaged equipment (Project)' restates the tool name 'update_unmanaged_equipment_project_v2_0' and adds minimal context with '(Project)'. It specifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'unmanaged equipment', but lacks specificity about what is being updated (e.g., fields like 'is_active') and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_equipment_project_v2_0' or 'update_managed_equipment'. This is a tautology with slight elaboration.

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 an existing unmanaged equipment record), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'create_unmanaged_equipment_project_v2_0' or other update-related tools. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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