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' (implying a read operation) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it's safe (non-destructive), what the output format is, or any rate limits. The API endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but explicit safety and behavioral details are missing.

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 with two parts: the tool name restated and the API endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with critical usage information, and the endpoint detail may be redundant for an agent. It avoids waste but could be more structured to highlight key aspects like 'retrieve a single recycled template'.

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 read operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, permissions, and how it differs from other 'show' or 'recycled' tools. The API endpoint provides some context, but for an agent to use this effectively, more behavioral and contextual information is needed.

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 parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. According to rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as the description does not compensate or add value.

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 Checklist Template' states the action ('Show') and resource ('Recycled Checklist Template'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_checklist_template' or 'show_recycled_checklist_inspection', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope within recycled items. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Inspections]' and the API endpoint adds context but doesn't fully distinguish it.

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 mentions the API endpoint and category, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_recycled_checklist_templates' or 'show_checklist_template'. Without this, an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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