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 indicates a list operation via GET, implying read-only behavior, but fails to specify critical details like pagination handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). This leaves significant gaps 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, though the API endpoint detail, while concise, may be more technical than necessary for an agent's decision-making. Overall, it is efficiently structured with minimal fluff.

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 (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks explanation of return values, error conditions, pagination behavior, and the conceptual meaning of 'recycled near misses'. For a list operation with many filtering options, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly.

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 13 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how filters interact or the meaning of 'recycled' in context. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 lists recycled near misses, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_near_misses' or 'list_recycled_incidents', leaving ambiguity about its unique scope. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail but doesn't clarify functional differentiation.

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, such as needing a project with a recycle bin, or contrast it with non-recycled near-miss listing tools. Without this context, the agent lacks clear usage directives.

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