Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates this is a GET operation (implied read-only) but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'recycled' means operationally (e.g., soft-deleted items). The URL path suggests pagination parameters exist, but the description doesn't explain their behavior or default values.

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 technically concise but inefficiently structured. The first part 'Show Recycled Environmental' is redundant with the name, while the URL path provides useful technical context but isn't integrated into a coherent description. It's front-loaded with minimal value, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'Environmental' resource is, what 'recycled' means in this system, what the response format looks like, or how pagination works. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context beyond the basic parameter schema.

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 already documents all 5 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, though the description doesn't compensate with any contextual information about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 Environmental' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, making the purpose vague. The inclusion of a URL path '[Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/environmentals/{id}' provides some technical detail but doesn't clarify what 'Environmental' refers to or what 'Show' entails in this context.

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 any prerequisites, context for 'recycled' items, or how it differs from non-recycled environmental tools. Given the sibling tools list includes many 'list_recycled_*' and 'show_recycled_*' tools, there's no differentiation to help an agent choose appropriately.

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