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. The description mentions it's a POST operation, implying a write/mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: what permissions are required, whether it sends emails (the schema suggests it might), what happens if the person already has login access, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single sentence that includes the tool name, a category tag '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]', and the HTTP endpoint. While concise, it's not front-loaded with actionable information—the endpoint detail is less helpful than explaining the tool's purpose. The category tag adds some context but doesn't earn its place in a minimal description. It's brief but under-informative rather than efficiently structured.

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 (a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, output, error conditions, or relationship to other user management tools. The schema covers parameters well, but the description doesn't address the broader context needed for safe and correct invocation, especially for a write operation that likely affects system access.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like email/password/no_invite). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful semantic context.

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 'Enable a Person to Log In' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what 'enabling' entails (e.g., creating user credentials, setting permissions) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_a_person' or 'send_invite'. The description is vague and doesn't clearly articulate the tool's function 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. There are many sibling tools related to user management (e.g., 'create_a_person', 'send_invite', 'revoke_a_persons_login'), but the description offers no context about prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other user-related tools. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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