Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'GET' and 'Show', suggesting safe retrieval, but does not explicitly state if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the item is not found. The mention of 'recycle_bin' hints at accessing deleted items, but behavioral details like permissions or side effects are missing, leaving significant gaps.

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 three elements: a tautological title, a category tag, and a REST endpoint. However, it lacks structure—the endpoint details could be considered extraneous for an agent's understanding, and the front-loaded information is minimal. While not verbose, it under-specifies by omitting essential context, making it less helpful than a more informative yet concise description would be.

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 of accessing recycled items in a project management system, the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema are provided, and the description fails to explain what a 'recycled action plan item' entails, the expected return format, or error conditions. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for parameters like 'project_id' and 'id'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'project_id' and 'id' or the purpose of optional pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page'). Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name, adding no clarity. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and a REST endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/action_plans/plan_items/{id}', which hints at retrieving a specific recycled item but does not explicitly state the purpose in plain language. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_recycled_action_plan' or 'list_recycled_action_plan_items'.

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, such as needing a specific project or item ID, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'list_recycled_action_plan_items' (which might list multiple items) or 'show_action_plan_item' (which shows non-recycled items). Without any usage context, the agent lacks direction.

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