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 'List company inactive users' which implies a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it's safe, requires permissions, involves pagination, or returns structured data. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/users/inactive' hints at an API endpoint but doesn't explain behavior beyond listing.

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 clear action statement and an API endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the endpoint detail might be technical clutter. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for understanding.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a list operation with pagination parameters. It lacks details on return format, error handling, or usage context. While the schema covers inputs, the overall context for an agent to use this tool effectively is incomplete.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract value.

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 'List company inactive users' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('company inactive users'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_project_inactive_users' or other user-listing tools, lacking specificity about scope or differentiation.

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, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for administrative purposes or how it differs from active user listings. The sibling list includes 'list_project_inactive_users', but no comparison is made.

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