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. The description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate that this is a mutation operation (restoring implies a state change), what permissions are required, whether the restore is reversible, or what happens upon success (e.g., the template becomes active again). The mention of 'PATCH' hints at mutation but is insufficient.

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 run-on sentence that combines the tool name, a vague context tag, and an HTTP endpoint. It's not front-loaded with clear purpose; instead, it mixes operational details without structuring them for clarity. While brief, it's under-specified rather than concise, failing to communicate essential information efficiently.

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 of a restore operation (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'restore' entails, the expected outcome, error conditions, or any side effects. The lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidelines leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.

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 (id and company_id) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameters (e.g., that 'id' refers to a form template ID in the recycle bin). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description provides no extra value.

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 'Restore Company Form Template' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb and resource clarification beyond what's implied by the name. While it mentions the context '[Project Management/Forms]' and the HTTP method 'PATCH', it doesn't clearly articulate what 'restore' means operationally (e.g., from a recycle bin, from deletion).

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the form template must be in a recycle bin), nor does it reference any sibling tools that might be related (like delete_company_form_template or list_recycled_company_form_templates). The agent is left with no contextual usage information.

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