Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/checklist/lists', indicating it's a read operation (non-destructive) and requires a project_id, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page params), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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/Inspections]'), and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though the endpoint detail might be extraneous for an agent. It efficiently conveys key information without redundancy.

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 (23 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate as a starting point. It identifies the resource and context (recycled checklists in a project), but lacks details on output format, error handling, or operational constraints. The schema covers inputs well, but the description doesn't fully address the tool's behavior in a rich context.

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 detailed descriptions for all 23 parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.' for project_id, date range formats). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate or detract.

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 Checklists (Inspections)'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes the resource as recycled items, which is specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_checklists_inspections' or 'list_recycled_checklist_inspections' (if present), though the 'recycled' aspect implies a subset.

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 lacks context about why one would list recycled checklists versus active ones, prerequisites (e.g., permissions), or references to sibling tools for non-recycled items. 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.