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. The description mentions it's a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it retrieves a single reference or a paginated list (the input schema includes pagination parameters 'page' and 'per_page', suggesting list behavior). It fails to describe the return format, error conditions, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 statement and the HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though that purpose is vague. There's no wasted verbiage, but it could be more informative. The structure is straightforward, but the content is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'recycled action plan reference' is, what data is returned, or how pagination works. The HTTP endpoint provides some context, but for a tool that likely returns structured data, the description fails to provide enough information for an agent to understand the output or usage context adequately.

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?

The 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 what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't 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 Reference' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds the category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and the HTTP endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/action_plans/plan_references/{id}', which provides technical context but doesn't clearly articulate what the tool does beyond showing something related to recycled action plan references. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate it from other 'show' or 'list' tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'show_recycled_action_plan', 'list_recycled_action_plan_references'). There is no explicit or implied usage guidance.

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