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. It indicates a 'GET' operation, implying a read-only action, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). The description lacks details on response format, pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), or side effects.

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 tautological title and an API endpoint. It is front-loaded but under-specified, as the first part adds little value. The endpoint provides technical context, but overall structure is minimal without clear separation of purpose from implementation details.

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 tool with 5 parameters (including pagination), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the concept of 'recycled' items, expected output, error handling, or how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page'. The endpoint hint is useful but insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and 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%, with all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, which implies 'project_id' and 'id' are required for identifying a specific recycled property damage. However, it does not explain the purpose of 'incident_id', 'page', or 'per_page' parameters, nor does it clarify if 'id' refers to the property damage ID or recycled entry ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 Property Damage' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It adds minimal context with '[Project Management/Incidents]' and the API endpoint, but fails to specify what action is performed (e.g., retrieve, view, or list) or clarify the resource scope beyond what's implied by the name. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_property_damage' or 'list_property_damages'.

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 any prerequisites, context for 'recycled' items, or differentiate from similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'show_property_damage', 'list_property_damages', 'retrieve_property_damage'). Usage is entirely implied, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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