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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention required permissions (e.g., Directory Admin for certain parameters), potential side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. The technical endpoint hint suggests a REST API call but doesn't explain behavioral traits like idempotency or response format.

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 just one sentence and a technical endpoint reference. While not wasteful, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks essential details that would help an agent. It meets minimal length requirements but fails to provide adequate context.

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), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, return values, error handling, or permission requirements hinted at in parameter descriptions (e.g., Directory Admin for email_address). For a mutation tool with significant parameter complexity, this description leaves critical gaps.

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 detailed parameter documentation in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate or add value 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 restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_company_user_v1_0' or 'create_company_user_v1_3', which appear to be similar versions. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.2/companies/{company_id}/users' provides technical context but doesn't clarify the functional purpose beyond the name.

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. With multiple sibling tools like 'create_company_user_v1_0', 'create_company_user_v1_1', 'create_company_user_v1_3', and 'create_company_user_v1_0_2', there is no indication of version differences, prerequisites, or contextual usage. This leaves the agent without necessary decision-making information.

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