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 'Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration' hinting at permission requirements, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'List'), pagination behavior (though schema has page/per_page), rate limits, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool with no annotation coverage.

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: purpose and API context. It wastes no words, though the API path detail may be extraneous for an AI agent. Structure is front-loaded with the core action ('List recycled links'). It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, what 'recycled links' are, or how pagination works (though schema hints at it). For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, 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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema—it only implies project_id is required via the API path but doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage. 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 states the tool's purpose ('List recycled links') which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, as many other 'list_recycled_*' tools exist (e.g., list_recycled_action_plan, list_recycled_checklists_inspections). The description lacks specificity about what 'recycled links' are or the resource scope beyond the API path hint.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration]' which implies permission context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools for active vs. recycled items). No explicit when-not or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage context vague.

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