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 only restates the tool name and includes an API endpoint reference, but fails to describe key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination details, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 restatement of the tool name and an API endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, as it lacks essential context and wastes space on redundant information (the tool name). It could be more front-loaded with actionable details, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 list operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'assignable users' means in context, the expected output format, or any behavioral traits like pagination or authentication needs. This leaves the agent poorly equipped 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (project_id, filters__search, page, per_page) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Assignable Users'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on assignable users, but does not explicitly differentiate from other user-listing tools in the sibling list, such as 'list_assignee_filter_options' or 'list_possible_assignees_company_v2_0', which slightly limits clarity.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a project_id, and does not mention any exclusions or when to choose other user-listing tools from the sibling list, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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