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. It implies a read operation ('Show') but doesn't specify if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. The API path suggests a GET request, which hints at read-only behavior, but this isn't explicitly stated. No information is given about authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items).

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—it's a single sentence that restates the name and adds an API path. While front-loaded, it lacks essential details like purpose clarification or usage guidelines. The API path inclusion is somewhat redundant but provides technical context. Overall, it's brief but not sufficiently informative.

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 read operation on a recycled resource with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recycled' means, what data is returned, or how pagination works. The agent must infer behavior from the API path alone, which is insufficient for reliable tool invocation. More context is needed for a tool with four parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that 'id' refers to a recycled assignee) or usage nuances (e.g., pagination defaults). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 'Show Recycled Action Plan Item Assignee' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added context. It specifies the resource ('Recycled Action Plan Item Assignee') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Show' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_recycled_action_plan_item' or 'list_recycled_action_plan_item_assignees'. The API path hint adds some specificity but doesn't fully clarify the purpose.

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., needing a recycled item), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_recycled_action_plan_item_assignees' (which might list multiple) or 'show_action_plan_item_assignee' (which might show non-recycled ones). Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for selection.

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