Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Bulk deactivation' and includes an API endpoint, but fails to describe critical behaviors: it does not clarify if deactivation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, or any rate limits. The description lacks essential context for a mutation operation, leaving the agent uninformed about risks and constraints.

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 a single sentence, but it is not front-loaded with actionable information—it mixes a vague purpose with technical API details. While brief, it could be more structured to prioritize clarity over endpoint specifics, making it moderately effective but not optimally organized.

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 tool's complexity (a bulk mutation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome of deactivation, error handling, or side effects. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by providing more context, but it fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'company_id' as a unique identifier, 'ids' as an array of people IDs). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but no extra value from 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 'Bulk deactivation. [Core/Directory] POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/people/bulk_deactivate' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'bulk_deactivation_v2_0' without specifying what is being deactivated (people) or clarifying the action's scope. While it mentions 'people' in the URL path, the description itself lacks a clear verb+resource statement, making it vague and minimally informative.

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, appropriate contexts, or sibling tools like 'bulk_activation_v2_0' for comparison. Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate, leading to potential misuse.

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