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 implies a read-only list operation via 'GET', but does not specify pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). The description lacks details on return format, error conditions, or side effects, leaving gaps for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'List Recycled RFIs.' It includes only essential context (project management category and API endpoint) without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the description earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope and technical path.

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 (a list operation with filtering and pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return structure (e.g., list of RFI objects), error handling, or behavioral nuances like how 'recycled' items are defined. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed for 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 parameters like project_id, page, per_page, and filters__updated_at. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining filter usage or pagination defaults. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 tool's purpose: 'List Recycled RFIs.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Recycled RFIs'), and includes the context '[Project Management/RFI]' and API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis/recycle_bin', which helps clarify it's a read operation for deleted RFIs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_rfis' or 'retrieve_recycled_rfi', which slightly reduces clarity.

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. It mentions the API endpoint but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., needing project_id), exclusions, or comparisons to other list or retrieve tools for RFIs. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and similar tools.

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