Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create company user' but fails to mention that this is a write operation requiring permissions (e.g., Directory Admin for email_address), potential side effects, or rate limits. The lack of such details leaves the agent unprepared for real-world usage.

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 with a single sentence, 'Create company user. [Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.1/companies/{company_id}/users', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action and API endpoint without unnecessary elaboration.

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the creation process, required permissions, or what happens upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with many parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly.

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 permissions). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the 28 parameters without needing extra explanation.

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 restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what a 'company user' entails or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_company_user_v1_0' or 'create_company_user_v1_2', leaving the purpose vague.

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, such as other versions (e.g., v1_0, v1_2) or related tools like 'create_project_user'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it misleadingly simplistic for a complex operation.

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