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 the action is a 'PATCH' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether restoration is reversible, what happens to the restored plan (e.g., status changes), or potential side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the HTTP method.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The inclusion of the category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and API endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/action_plans/plans/{id}/restore' adds context without being verbose, though the endpoint detail might be excessive for some users.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It identifies the tool and provides an API endpoint, but lacks details on behavior, output, or error handling. For a restore operation, more context on what 'restore' entails would be beneficial, but the description meets a basic threshold.

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', 'id') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between project and action plan IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does 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 action ('Restore') and resource ('Recycled Action Plan'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact resource type (Action Plan) rather than generic items, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other restore tools like 'restore_recycled_checklist_template'.

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., needing a recycled action plan), exclusions, or compare with other restore tools in the sibling list (like 'restore_recycled_checklist_template'). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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