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 'List Recycled Action Plan' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'recycled' means (e.g., soft-deleted items). For a list tool with 12 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with the tool name, category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]', and HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('List Recycled Action Plan') and avoids redundancy. The endpoint detail is extraneous for an AI agent but does not significantly hinder clarity. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of action plan objects), pagination defaults, or the meaning of 'recycled' (e.g., deleted items in a recycle bin). For a list tool with filtering and sorting capabilities, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 12 parameters (e.g., project_id, filters, sort). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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 'List Recycled Action Plan' states the verb ('List') and resource ('Recycled Action Plan'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_action_plan_items' or 'list_recycled_action_plan_sections', which list specific sub-resources. The description is adequate but lacks sibling distinction.

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 a project_id), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_action_plans' (which lists non-recycled plans). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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