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 Observation Items' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive). It lacks details on pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the endpoint.

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 but under-specified—it consists of a tautological phrase, a category tag, and an endpoint. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information efficiently. The structure is front-loaded with the tautology, but the endpoint details are appended without adding clarity. It could be more concise by eliminating redundancy and integrating meaningful details.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'recycled' means, the nature of 'observation items', or the expected return format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate by detailing behavioral aspects and output semantics, but it fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 12 parameters (e.g., 'project_id', various filters, pagination). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. However, it does not contradict the schema, and with high coverage, the 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 'List Recycled Observation Items' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds no specificity about what 'recycled' means in this context (e.g., deleted/archived items) or what 'observation items' entail. While it includes a category tag '[Project Management/Observations]' and an endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/observations/items', these do not clarify the tool's purpose beyond the name itself.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_observation_items' or 'list_recycled_checklists_inspections'. Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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