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 states 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/observations/items/{id}/restore', implying a restore action (changing state from recycled to active), which is a mutation. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects (e.g., if restoration affects related data), error conditions, or response format. The description hints at behavior via the URL path but lacks explicit details needed for safe invocation.

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 with two parts: a brief title-like phrase and a detailed API endpoint. However, it's not front-loaded with actionable information; the endpoint details are useful but could be better integrated with a clearer purpose statement. It avoids redundancy but under-specifies by omitting key usage context, making it somewhat inefficient despite its brevity.

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 (a mutation tool for restoring recycled observations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'retrieve' entails (likely a restore operation), the expected outcome, error handling, or security considerations. The endpoint path suggests a restore action, but without explicit confirmation, the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively and safely.

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: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Observation ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra explanation 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 'Retrieve Recycled Observation' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It mentions the resource ('Observation') and includes a category tag '[Project Management/Observations]', but fails to specify what 'retrieve' means in this context (e.g., restore from recycle bin, fetch details). The HTTP method 'PATCH' suggests a state change, which contradicts a simple retrieval, but this isn't clarified. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on recycled observations, but the purpose remains vague.

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 observation), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., tools for non-recycled observations or other recycle bin operations). The sibling list includes many tools, but no differentiation is offered, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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