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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and endpoint, implying a write operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., user added with permissions). This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, followed by technical details (Core/Directory, POST endpoint). It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of the endpoint path might be more technical than needed for an agent's understanding.

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 user-addition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, success/error responses, and usage context. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this description does not provide enough context for reliable agent 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 descriptions for each parameter (project_id, id, permission_template_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the target resources ('company user to project'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_to_project' or 'bulk_add_company_users_to_projects_v1_1', which have similar purposes but different scopes or methods.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or comparisons to sibling tools like bulk operations or other user-addition methods, 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.