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-only operation ('Show' and 'GET'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results (suggested by page/per_page parameters), or what happens if the recycled action doesn't exist. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Show Recycled Action'). The bracketed context '[Project Management/Incidents]' and HTTP endpoint are somewhat redundant but provide technical context efficiently. No wasted sentences, though it could be more informative.

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 5 parameters (including pagination), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or the significance of 'recycled' in this context. For a read operation with pagination and filtering, more guidance is needed for effective agent 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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (project_id, id, incident_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that incident_id might be optional for filtering) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states 'Show Recycled Action' which indicates a retrieval/display operation for a specific resource (recycled actions). However, it's vague about what 'recycled actions' are (likely deleted/archived items in a project management context) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_recycled_action' (without version) or 'retrieve_recycled_action_v1_1'. The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint adds technical detail but doesn't clarify the business 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific project context), exclusions, or related tools like 'list_recycled_actions' for multiple items. The agent must infer usage from the parameters and context alone.

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