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 'List' and includes an API endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether it's paginated (implied by 'page'/'per_page' params but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). The description is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation support.

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. However, it includes extraneous details like the API endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/property_damages'), which is redundant for an AI agent and could be omitted. The structure is efficient but not perfectly streamlined.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks explanation of the tool's behavior, output format, error handling, and the meaning of 'recycled' in this domain. The agent cannot fully understand how to invoke this tool correctly without additional context, making it incomplete for practical 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 each parameter documented in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Property Damages' restates the tool name with minimal context. It specifies the resource ('Recycled Property Damages') and verb ('List'), but lacks differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_property_damages' or other recycled item listers) and does not clarify what 'recycled' means in this context. It's vague but not tautological.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and API endpoint, but these do not offer practical usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'list_property_damages' or other list operations. The agent is left without contextual direction.

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