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 indicates a GET operation (implying read-only) and mentions 'recycled', suggesting retrieval of deleted or archived items. However, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether authentication is required, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 brief purpose statement and the HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the first part is redundant with the name, and the endpoint details could be considered extraneous for an agent's decision-making. It's efficient but not perfectly structured for clarity.

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 (retrieving a specific recycled witness statement), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'recycled' witness statement is, the expected return format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively without external knowledge.

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 well-documented in the schema (e.g., project_id as 'Unique identifier for the project', id as 'Witness Statement ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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 Witness Statement' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It adds the category '[Project Management/Incidents]' and the HTTP endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/witness_statements/{id}', which provides some context but doesn't clearly articulate what the tool does beyond showing something. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition that distinguishes it from siblings.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for 'recycled' items, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'show_witness_statement' or 'list_recycled_witness_statements'. The agent must infer usage from the endpoint structure alone.

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