Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Show' and 'GET'), suggesting it is non-destructive, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks details on what is returned (e.g., form data, status) or any side effects. While not contradictory, it provides minimal behavioral insight beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 parts: a restated name and a technical endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with actionable information; the technical details do not enhance clarity for an AI agent. While brief, it could be more structured to highlight purpose or usage, making it adequate but not optimally efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that lacks behavioral and usage details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Show' returns (e.g., form content or metadata), prerequisites for accessing recycled forms, or how pagination parameters function. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output information, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use.

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., 'Project Form ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.', 'Page number for pagination', 'Items per page (max 100)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra description.

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 Project Form' restates the tool name and adds minimal context ('[Project Management/Forms] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/forms/{id}'). It specifies the action ('Show') and resource ('Recycled Project Form'), but lacks specificity about what 'Show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, metadata, or content) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'show_recycled_action_plan' or 'show_recycled_checklist_template'. The inclusion of the HTTP method and path is technical but does not clarify the functional purpose beyond the name.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a recycled form), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., 'list_recycled_project_forms' for listing or 'restore_project_form' for restoration). Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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