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 mentions 'List Recycled Incidents' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), permissions required, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe and effective use.

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 purpose statement and a technical endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core function, though the purpose statement is redundant. The technical details are useful but could be better integrated. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'recycled incidents' are, how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., pagination defaults). Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior and results, which it fails to do.

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 parameter documentation in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining filter interactions or default values. However, the baseline score is 3 because the schema adequately covers parameter meanings, and the description does not need to compensate for gaps.

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 Incidents' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_incidents' or 'retrieve_recycled_incident'. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents' provides technical details but does not clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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, such as needing a project_id, or differentiate from other incident-related tools (e.g., 'list_incidents' for active incidents). Without any usage context, an AI agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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