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/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/injuries/{id}/restore', which implies a mutation (restore operation), but doesn't explicitly state behavioral traits like whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, or what happens upon restoration. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It includes the tool name, a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]', and an API endpoint, but these elements don't form a coherent, helpful description. The structure is fragmented and fails to front-load essential information about the tool's purpose.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It hints at restoring a recycled injury but doesn't explain the outcome, error conditions, or system behavior. For a tool that likely modifies state (restore operation), this lack of detail 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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily due to good schema documentation.

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 Injury' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the API endpoint path but doesn't explain what 'retrieve' means in this context (e.g., restoring from recycle bin, fetching metadata). The description fails to specify the verb's action clearly 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many 'recycled' and 'retrieve' tools (like retrieve_recycled_incident, retrieve_recycled_action), but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from those or indicate prerequisites like needing a recycled injury to restore.

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