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 states 'Create company user', implying a write operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions (e.g., Directory Admin for email_address or permission template parameters), potential side effects, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 two parts: a functional statement and a technical endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Create company user') and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the technical endpoint detail, while useful, could be considered extraneous for an agent's decision-making, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 creation tool with 29 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, and response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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 descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company' for company_id, permissions notes for email_address). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing additional 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 'Create company user' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_company_user_v1_0' or 'create_company_user_v1_1', which appear to be similar versions. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.3/companies/{company_id}/users' provides technical context but does not 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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as required permissions (e.g., Directory Admin for certain parameters), or differentiate it from sibling tools like other versions of 'create_company_user'. There is no indication of when-not-to-use scenarios or explicit alternatives, leaving the agent without usage context.

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