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 mentions the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). This is a significant gap for a tool with 8 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that includes the tool name, context, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by separating usage notes from the endpoint. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks information on return values (e.g., list structure, fields), error conditions, and the meaning of 'recycled' in this context. The agent must rely heavily on the schema and trial-and-error, which is insufficient for a list operation with filtering and pagination.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., date range formats for filters). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, which includes 'project_id' and hints at 'incident_id' scoping. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Recycled Actions'), and includes the context '[Project Management/Incidents]' to clarify the domain. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_actions_v1_1' or 'list_recycled_incidents', which are present in the sibling list, leaving some ambiguity.

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., project context), exclusions, or related tools for non-recycled actions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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