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 mentions 'GET' which implies read-only, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions needed, or what 'recycled' means (soft-deleted? recoverable?). The description lacks behavioral details like pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page params) or error conditions.

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 brief but includes unnecessary API endpoint details that don't help the agent. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, but the bracketed category and endpoint add clutter without value. It's front-loaded but could be more focused on the tool's function rather than implementation details.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'recycled' means operationally, what data is returned, or how pagination works. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and guess about behavior and output format, leaving significant gaps.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (project_id, id, page, per_page). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide context for the 'id' parameter (must be a recycled section ID). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states the tool shows a recycled action plan section, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'show_recycled_action_plan' or 'show_recycled_action_plan_section' (if they exist), and the inclusion of the API endpoint adds noise without clarifying 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to know the section is in the recycle bin) or when this is appropriate versus showing non-recycled sections. Without any usage context, the agent must infer from the name alone.

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