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 'PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/actions/{id}/restore', implying a mutation (restore) rather than a simple read, but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The mismatch between 'Retrieve' (suggests read) and 'PATCH .../restore' (suggests write) creates confusion without clarification.

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 line with the tool name, category tag, and HTTP path. It's concise but under-specified—the HTTP path adds technical detail but doesn't clarify purpose. The structure is front-loaded with the name, but the tag and path could be better integrated into a clearer explanation.

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-like operation (PATCH to restore), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Retrieve Recycled Action' means in behavioral terms (e.g., restoring a deleted action), what the return value is, or error conditions. The mismatch between 'retrieve' and the restore action leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema. Required parameters are indicated in the schema. 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 'Retrieve Recycled Action' states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Recycled Action'), but it's vague about what a 'Recycled Action' is (likely a deleted/archived incident action). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'retrieve_recycled_incident' or 'retrieve_recycled_action_v1_1' (same version?), leaving ambiguity. The HTTP method 'PATCH' and path suggest restoration, which conflicts with 'retrieve'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many 'retrieve_recycled_*' variants (e.g., 'retrieve_recycled_incident', 'retrieve_recycled_action'), but the description doesn't clarify distinctions. The '[Project Management/Incidents]' tag hints at context but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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