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 operation ('Show') and includes a GET endpoint, suggesting it is safe and non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly state whether it requires specific permissions, what the output looks like, or any rate limits. The API endpoint hints at pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page'), but the description does not explain this behavior.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that includes the tool name, category, and API endpoint. There is no wasted verbiage, and it efficiently conveys the essential elements. However, it could be more structured by separating the functional purpose from the technical 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?

Given the complexity (a tool for retrieving recycled action plan template receivers with pagination), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'recycled action plan template receiver' is, the expected return format, or any error conditions. The API endpoint provides some context but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and output details.

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 additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 Receiver' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds the category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and the API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/action_plans/plan_template_receivers/{id}', which provides some context but does not clearly articulate what the tool does beyond the name. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include many 'show_recycled_*' tools (e.g., 'show_recycled_action_plan', 'show_recycled_action_plan_item'), there is no differentiation offered, leaving the agent without usage instructions.

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