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 doesn't confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). The HTTP method hints at non-destructive behavior, but explicit behavioral traits 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 brief but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tautological name, then adds a category and endpoint. The endpoint detail is useful for debugging but not for agent decision-making. While not verbose, it wastes space on redundant information instead of providing actionable context.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or the significance of 'recycled' in the context. The agent lacks enough information to understand what this tool delivers beyond a basic read operation, given the complexity implied by the sibling tools.

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., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining relationships (e.g., 'id' refers to a recycled template) or pagination context. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Company Action Plan Template' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds the category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and the HTTP endpoint, but doesn't specify what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata) or clarify the resource scope beyond what's implied by the name. It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'show_recycled_action_plan' or 'show_recycled_company_action_plan_template_v1_1'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a recycled template ID), exclusions, or related tools for non-recycled templates. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_recycled_company_action_plan_templates', 'restore_recycled_company_action_plan_template'), the absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing.

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