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/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/witness_statements/{id}/restore', which implies a restore operation (mutating state), but doesn't clarify behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., moving from recycle bin back to active), or error conditions. 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 concise with two parts: a brief purpose statement and an HTTP method/path. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the HTTP detail might be overly technical for an AI agent. No wasted sentences, but it could be more user-friendly.

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 restoring from recycle bin), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., returns the restored statement, requires incident_id optionally), success/failure behaviors, or how it fits into the recycle bin workflow. More context is needed for effective use.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the HTTP path hint, which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Witness Statement' states the action (retrieve) and resource (recycled witness statement), but it's somewhat vague about what 'retrieve' means in this context (e.g., restore from recycle bin, fetch metadata). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'recycled', but lacks clarity on the exact operation compared to similar tools like 'retrieve_recycled_witness_statement_v1_1'.

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 mentions '[Project Management/Incidents]' as a category but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or sibling tool comparisons (e.g., when to use this over 'restore_recycled_witness_statement_v1_1' or 'list_recycled_witness_statements').

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