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') and includes a GET endpoint, suggesting it's non-destructive. However, it fails to disclose critical behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'recycled' entails (e.g., soft-deleted items). The description adds minimal behavioral context 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 sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing the HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, the second sentence includes technical details (GET path) that might be redundant if the agent already has structured endpoint data, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and the meaning of 'recycled' in this context. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured output, the description should provide more context about the retrieved data and operational constraints.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between 'id', 'incident_id', and pagination parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 states the tool shows a recycled witness statement, which is a specific verb (show) and resource (recycled witness statement). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_witness_statement' or 'retrieve_recycled_witness_statement', leaving ambiguity about its unique scope. The inclusion of the HTTP method and path adds technical detail but doesn't clarify functional uniqueness.

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 mentions the category '[Project Management/Incidents]' but does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, the agent lacks usage context.

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