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 implies a read operation ('Show'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated data. The HTTP method 'GET' hints at read-only, but this isn't explicitly stated, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and category, and another providing the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the second sentence includes technical details that might be redundant if the agent already has structured endpoint data, but it's not wasteful.

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 of a tool with four parameters (including pagination) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Show' returns (e.g., observation details, paginated list), behavioral constraints, or error conditions, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples, but this is acceptable given the high coverage, meeting the baseline.

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 Observation' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Recycled Observation'), but it's vague about what 'Show' means—does it retrieve details, list items, or something else? It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_observation_items' or 'retrieve_recycled_observation', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific project or observation ID, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_recycled_observation_items' for broader queries or 'retrieve_recycled_observation' for similar retrieval, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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