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. It states 'Show' (implying a read operation) and includes a GET endpoint, suggesting it's likely safe and non-destructive. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or the format of returned data. The description adds minimal value beyond the implicit 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating the endpoint). However, its brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 tool's complexity (retrieving a specific recycled resource), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'recycled' means (e.g., soft-deleted items), the expected output format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a read operation with structured parameters, more contextual information is needed for effective use.

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 company', 'Action Plan Template Section ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path hints ('/companies/{company_id}/recycle_bin/action_plans/plan_template_sections/{id}'), which align with schema parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Section' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and an API endpoint, but lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata). It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_recycled_action_plan' or 'show_recycled_action_plan_template_items'.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a recycled section ID), exclusions, or related tools for non-recycled sections. Without usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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