Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'List' implying a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (page/per_page parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'recycled' means operationally (soft-deleted items). The endpoint path suggests a GET request, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The endpoint path adds technical context but doesn't clutter the human-readable intent. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (list structure, fields), pagination behavior, error conditions, or the meaning of 'recycled' in this context. For a list tool with many filter options, more operational context is needed.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how filters interact) or provide examples, but the schema handles the basics adequately.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Recycled Witness Statements'), and provides context about the domain ('Project Management/Incidents'). It distinguishes the resource type but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_witness_statements_v1_1' or 'list_witness_statements'.

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 technical endpoint path but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools like 'list_witness_statements' (non-recycled) or 'list_recycled_witness_statements_v1_1'.

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