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 states 'List Recycled Environmentals' and includes an API endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (hinted by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). The endpoint suggests a GET request, but no explicit safety or mutation details are given.

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 concise with two parts: a restated name and an API endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The endpoint adds technical context but does not front-load actionable guidance. It avoids waste but lacks substance, making it minimally adequate.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination handling, or the meaning of 'Recycled Environmentals' in the context of incidents. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project', 'incident_id' for scoping). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'filters__environmental_type_id' or 'sort' enums relate to 'Environmentals'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 Environmentals' restates the tool name without adding specificity. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and an API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/environmentals', which hints at the resource and operation but lacks a clear verb+resource distinction from siblings like 'list_environmentals' or 'list_recycled_incidents'. The purpose is vague regarding what 'Recycled Environmentals' are.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after deletion), or sibling tools like 'list_environmentals' or 'list_recycled_incidents'. Usage is implied only by the endpoint structure, leaving the agent to infer based on the 'recycle_bin' path.

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