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 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/property_damages/{id}/restore', which implies a restore operation (a mutation), but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details.

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 but under-specified, consisting of a tautological phrase and a URL. It is front-loaded with the tool name but lacks informative content. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary context, making it inefficient in conveying useful information.

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 (a restore operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., restoring from recycle bin), the outcome, or any error conditions. The absence of behavioral details and output information leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 descriptions for 'project_id', 'id', and 'incident_id'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 Property Damage' is a tautology that restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It does not specify the action (e.g., 'restore' from recycle bin) or resource details, making the purpose vague 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?

The description includes '[Project Management/Incidents]' which hints at context but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other property damage tools like 'list_property_damages' or 'create_property_damage'). No usage scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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