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 pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') via the input schema, but doesn't describe behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'recycled' means in this context (e.g., soft-deleted items). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes an API endpoint. There is zero wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (a simple list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the nature of 'recycled' items, expected output format, or error conditions. It meets the bare minimum for a list tool but leaves gaps in usability.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. However, the baseline is 3 because the schema adequately documents the parameters, so the description isn't required to compensate.

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 ('List') and resource ('Recycled Checklist Templates'), and includes a domain context ('Project Management/Inspections'). It distinguishes itself from generic list tools by specifying 'recycled' items, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_checklists_inspections' or 'list_checklist_templates'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other list tools in the system (e.g., for active vs. recycled templates). The agent must 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.