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. It states 'Show' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 includes an HTTP method and endpoint path, which is useful but could be considered extraneous. No wasted sentences, though it could be more structured for clarity.

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 and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters). For a read operation with pagination, more context on output structure would be helpful, but it meets a minimum viable threshold.

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., 'Checklist ID', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Show') and resource ('Recycled Checklist (Inspection)'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies that it retrieves a checklist from the recycle bin, which distinguishes it from non-recycled checklist tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other recycled checklist tools (e.g., 'list_recycled_checklists_inspections'), which prevents a score of 5.

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 checklist ID), exclusions, or sibling tools for comparison. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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