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 Injuries' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It includes an API endpoint hint which, while not strictly necessary, adds technical context without verbosity. No wasted words, but could be slightly more informative.

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 (17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'recycled' means (e.g., soft-deleted items), the expected output format, or error conditions. For a list operation with many filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 17 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how filters interact or the meaning of 'recycled' in this context). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Injuries'), with a context hint ('Project Management/Incidents'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_injuries' or 'list_recycled_incidents', but the name and description are specific enough to infer it lists deleted injuries in a recycle bin context.

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 like 'list_injuries' (for active injuries) or other recycled item tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing project access) or exclusions, 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.