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. 'Show' implies a read operation, but it doesn't clarify whether this is a safe read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns paginated results, or what happens with the optional pagination parameters. The endpoint path suggests a GET operation, but behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, or response format are completely undocumented.

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 wastes characters on tautological restatement and includes endpoint details that belong in structured metadata rather than natural language description. While not verbose, it fails to front-load useful information for the agent.

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 severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'recycled incident' is, what data is returned, how pagination works with the optional parameters, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on the description.

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 all four parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation solely through the schema, with zero value added by the description text.

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 Incident' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context beyond what's implied by the name. The bracketed '[Project Management/Incidents]' and endpoint path provide some domain context but don't articulate what the tool actually does in operational terms.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_incidents' or 'retrieve_recycled_incident' that appear in the sibling list. The agent receives no usage direction.

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