Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool uses a PATCH method, implying a mutation (restoring a recycled RFI), but doesn't clarify if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description lacks details on what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., restoring to active status) and any constraints like rate limits.

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 but under-specified, consisting of a tautological phrase, a category, and an endpoint. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential information upfront, making it inefficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation to restore a recycled RFI), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., what happens after retrieval), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions ('project_id' as a unique identifier, 'id' as RFI ID). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining what an RFI ID refers to or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 RFI' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/RFI]' and a PATCH endpoint, but these do not specify what the tool does beyond the name. The verb 'retrieve' is generic, and it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_rfis' or 'recycle_rfi'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that an RFI must be recycled first), exclusions, or related tools like 'recycle_rfi' or 'list_recycled_rfis'. Without this context, an agent cannot make an informed decision.

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