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 states 'Create company user', implying a write operation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions (e.g., Directory Admin for certain fields), potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. The inclusion of the API path '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/users' hints at the HTTP method but doesn't elaborate on behavioral aspects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

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 extremely concise—just two short phrases. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Create company user') and includes the API path for technical context. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity contributes to deficiencies in other dimensions.

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 (28 parameters, 3 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's purpose in depth, usage context, behavioral traits, or return values. For a mutation tool with many parameters and no structured safety hints, the description should provide more guidance to compensate, which it fails to do.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'email_address' notes Directory Admin permission requirements). The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 when the description provides no additional param info, which applies here.

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 'Create company user' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks details about what a 'company user' entails, the scope of creation, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_company_user_v1_1' or 'create_project_user'. This minimal statement fails to provide meaningful context beyond the obvious.

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 (e.g., required permissions), typical scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_company_user_v1_1' or 'create_project_user'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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