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/links/{id}/restore', indicating a PATCH operation that likely restores a link, suggesting a mutation (not read-only). However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., what happens to the recycled state), permissions beyond the bracketed hint, error conditions, or response format. The description provides basic behavioral insight but is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieve recycled link'), but it includes technical details (HTTP method and endpoint) that may not be essential for an AI agent's understanding. While not wasteful, it could be more streamlined by focusing on user-facing semantics rather than implementation specifics. The structure is adequate but not optimally concise for clarity.

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 tool (implied by PATCH), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns, error handling, or the full impact of the operation (e.g., does 'retrieve' mean restoring the link to an active state?). The permission hint is helpful, but overall, the description does not provide enough context for safe and effective use by 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 both parameters ('id' as 'Link ID' and 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which fits here.

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 link' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It adds minimal clarification beyond the name itself, failing to specify what 'retrieve' means in this context (e.g., restore, fetch details) or what a 'recycled link' is. While it includes an HTTP method and endpoint, this is technical detail rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration]', which implies a permission or role requirement, providing some context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'recycled' or 'link' tools in the sibling list) or specify prerequisites beyond the implied permissions. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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