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 hints at a 'restore' action via the path, suggesting a mutation (restoring from recycle bin), but does not clarify permissions, side effects, or response format. The description lacks behavioral details like whether this is idempotent, requires specific auth, or has rate limits, making it insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, poorly structured sentence that mixes a tautology with unexplained bracketed context and a raw API path. It is not front-loaded with useful information and includes extraneous details (like the full path) without interpretation, making it inefficient and confusing rather than concise.

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 likely performs a restore operation (implied by path) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'retrieve environmental' means in context, what 'restore' entails, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract 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 'Retrieve Environmental' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, and does not distinguish from sibling tools. The bracketed '[Project Management/Incidents]' and path '/rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/environmentals/{id}/restore' are not explained, leaving the purpose vague.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'restore_environmental' or 'retrieve_recycled_environmental' that might exist in the list. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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