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 'restore' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether this is a mutation (likely, given PATCH), what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The HTTP path includes '/recycle_bin/', hinting at recycling context, but this isn't explicitly stated in the description text.

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—a single sentence with the tool name, category, and HTTP details. It's front-loaded with the action ('Restore Project Form'), but the inclusion of '[Project Management/Forms]' and the HTTP method/path adds clutter without enhancing clarity for an AI agent. However, it avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured.

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 'restore' and PATCH), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: what 'restore' entails (e.g., from recycle bin), expected outcomes, error conditions, or behavioral details. The HTTP path hints at recycling but isn't explained, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct usage.

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 parameters 'id' and 'project_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the relationship between the IDs or their format. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 Project Form' states the action (restore) and resource (project form), but it's vague about what 'restore' means—recovering from deletion, recycling, or another state. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'restore_recycled_project_form' or 'restore_deleted_checklist_inspection', leaving ambiguity. The HTTP method (PATCH) and path are included but don't clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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. Sibling tools include many 'restore' operations (e.g., 'restore_recycled_project_form', 'restore_deleted_checklist_inspection'), but the description doesn't specify if this is for recycled forms, deleted forms, or another context. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage.

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