Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Show' and includes a REST endpoint, implying a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), what permissions are needed, whether it returns full or partial data, or if there are rate limits. The endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but behavioral details like response format or error conditions are missing.

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 very concise—just one sentence with the tool name and endpoint. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it wastes space by repeating the name and including a REST endpoint that may not be necessary for an AI agent. Every word earns its place, but it could be more informative without losing 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 tool to show a specific recycled action plan with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'recycled' means in this context, what data is returned, or how pagination works. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output info, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which fits here as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 Plan' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It states the action ('Show') and resource ('Recycled Action Plan'), but lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_action_plan' or 'show_recycled_action_plan_item'. It's vague compared to what a clear purpose statement should provide.

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. There are many sibling tools related to action plans (e.g., 'list_recycled_action_plan', 'show_recycled_action_plan_item'), but the description fails to indicate this tool's specific role, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's completely silent on usage context.

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