Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state this or discuss any side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or error conditions. The pagination parameters (page, per_page) suggest list behavior, but the description doesn't explain this - it only mentions showing a single injury by ID, creating confusion about whether this is a list or detail view.

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 under-specified. The first part 'Show Recycled Injury' is redundant with the tool name. The bracketed context '[Project Management/Incidents]' is somewhat helpful but vague. The API path provides technical specificity but doesn't serve as a functional description. While brief, the description fails to convey essential information efficiently.

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 severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'recycled injury' is in this system's context, what data is returned, or how this differs from non-recycled injury views. The API path suggests this is part of a recycle_bin feature, but this isn't explained. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., why both incident_id and id are needed) or provide usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 Injury' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_recycled_incident' or 'show_recycled_action'. The API path hint provides some technical context but doesn't clarify the tool's functional purpose.

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. No context is given about what makes a 'recycled injury' different from other injury-related tools, nor when one would need to retrieve recycled items versus active ones. The sibling tool list includes many similar 'show_recycled_' tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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