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 implies a read-only operation ('Show') and includes a GET endpoint, suggesting it's likely safe. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only tool, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., if viewing recycled items affects their state). The lack of annotations means the description should compensate with more behavioral details, which it fails to do.

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 no wasted words, consisting of a single sentence that includes the tool name and a URL path. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Show'). However, the conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, as it lacks explanatory context that would help an agent understand the tool's role.

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 implied by 'recycled' items and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recycled' means in this context, what data is returned, or how this tool fits into the broader system (e.g., relationship to non-recycled versions). For a tool with potential nuances around deleted or archived data, 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 parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project,' 'Action Plan Template Approver ID'). 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 detract but also doesn't add value.

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 Template Approver' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It mentions the resource ('Recycled Action Plan Template Approver') but lacks a specific verb or clear action beyond 'Show,' which is vague. While it includes a URL path hinting at a GET operation, this doesn't clarify the tool's purpose in a user-friendly way.

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 'recycled' items, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_action_plan_template_approver' (non-recycled version) or list tools. Without such information, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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