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 implies a read operation ('Show') and includes a GET endpoint, suggesting it's safe and non-destructive. However, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results (hinted by 'page'/'per_page' params but not explained), what 'recycled' means (soft-deleted items?), or error conditions. The description adds minimal value beyond the endpoint.

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—two brief sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Show Recycled Action Plan Template Items') and includes the endpoint, which is useful for debugging. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separating purpose from technical details) and could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with 4 parameters (2 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recycled' entails, the expected output format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns a list of items with pagination, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., 'id' refers to a template item in the recycle bin) or usage notes. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 restates the tool name ('Show Recycled Action Plan Template Items') with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It adds a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and the HTTP endpoint, but doesn't specify what 'show' means (e.g., list, retrieve details) or clarify the scope beyond 'recycled' items. It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_action_plan_template_items' or 'show_recycled_action_plan_template_section'.

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 specific ID), compare it to similar 'list' or 'show' tools for non-recycled items, or indicate typical use cases. The agent is left with no context for selection among siblings.

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