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 of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states 'Show Recycled Action' and a URL, offering no insight into whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the response format is, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely retrieves sensitive deleted data.

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, not effectively structured. It wastes space on a URL path that doesn't add explanatory value for an AI agent, while failing to front-load key information like the tool's purpose. It's brief but not helpful.

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 (retrieving deleted actions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'recycled action' is, the expected return format, or any behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for the agent to use the tool confidently.

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 all parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project' for project_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but no extra value 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 'Show Recycled Action. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/actions/{id}' is largely tautological, restating the tool name ('Show Recycled Action') and adding a URL path. It does not clearly articulate what the tool does beyond showing something 'recycled'—it lacks a specific verb and resource explanation, such as 'Retrieve details of a deleted action from the recycle bin for a specific incident in a project.'

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 any prerequisites, context (e.g., that the action must be deleted), or sibling tools (like 'list_recycled_actions' or 'restore_recycled_action'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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