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 mentions a PATCH endpoint which suggests a mutation operation (likely restoring an action from recycle bin), but doesn't explicitly state this. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context 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 concise (one line) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It includes the endpoint path which could be useful for debugging, but this doesn't help the AI agent understand the tool's purpose. The structure isn't front-loaded with clear intent—it's just a restatement of the name with technical details.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'retrieve' means operationally, what happens to the recycled action, or what the tool returns. Given the mutation implied by PATCH and the lack of structured documentation, the description fails to provide sufficient context 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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description provides zero additional value for parameter understanding.

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 Recycled Action' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions '[Project Management/Incidents]' and a PATCH endpoint, but doesn't specify what 'retrieve' means in this context (e.g., restore from recycle bin, fetch metadata). The verb 'retrieve' is vague compared to more specific alternatives like 'restore' or 'fetch'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many 'recycled' tools (e.g., retrieve_recycled_incident, retrieve_recycled_action_v1_1), but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from those or explain its specific context. There's no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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