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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve Recycled Incident' and includes an API endpoint, but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, if it restores the incident, what permissions are required, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, consisting of a brief purpose statement and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the tool's name and purpose, though the endpoint detail might be more technical than necessary for an agent. There is no wasted verbiage, but it could be more structured to separate functional intent from implementation 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?

Given the complexity of a retrieval operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., returns incident details, restores it from recycle bin), the expected output format, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (project_id and id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without extra help from the description.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Retrieve Recycled Incident', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_recycled_action' or 'retrieve_recycled_injury', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes this tool from other retrieval tools for different resource types. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail but does not clarify the functional distinction.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a recycled incident to exist), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'list_recycled_incidents' for listing versus retrieving a specific one. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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