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 states 'Recycle RFI' and includes a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose what 'recycle' means behaviorally—whether it's reversible, requires permissions, affects data permanently, or has side effects. The HTTP method hints at update, but without annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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 concise with two parts: a brief purpose statement and technical endpoint details. However, it's under-specified—the first part is too vague, and the second part is raw API information that may not help an AI agent understand the tool's function. It's structured but lacks informative content.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (implied by PATCH), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recycle' does, its effects, or return values. With sibling tools like 'restore_recycled_rfi', there's clear context for a recycle bin workflow, but the description fails to address this complexity, leaving gaps for agent understanding.

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 both parameters (project_id and id) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context about parameter usage.

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 'Recycle RFI' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the resource (RFI) but lacks a specific verb explanation—'recycle' could mean restore, delete, or move to a recycle bin. The context '[Project Management/RFI] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis/{id}/recycle' provides some technical detail but doesn't clarify the action's purpose in user terms.

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. Given the sibling tools include 'list_recycled_rfis', 'restore_recycled_rfi', and 'delete_rfi', there are clear alternatives for managing RFIs, but the description fails to mention any of them or explain when recycling is appropriate versus other actions.

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