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 only states 'List Deleted Punch Items' and includes an HTTP endpoint, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it shows permanently deleted items or those in recycle bin, or any rate limits. The endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 very concise with just two short phrases. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the HTTP endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/punch_items/recycle_bin' adds some technical detail that might be redundant if the tool interface abstracts this, but it doesn't significantly harm conciseness.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list structure, fields included), whether it only shows items in recycle bin versus permanently deleted, or any behavioral constraints. For a list tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return values and operational behavior.

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 three parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 tool's purpose: 'List Deleted Punch Items' with the context '[Project Management/Punch List]'. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'Deleted Punch Items', making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_punch_items' or 'list_deleted_punch_items_v1_1', which slightly limits its 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 doesn't mention when to use it over regular punch item listing tools or other deletion-related tools. The sibling list includes 'list_deleted_punch_items_v1_1', but no distinction is made between them.

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