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 the tool lists inactive users, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or output format. The API endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but without annotations, critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 sentences, but the second sentence includes API details ('[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/users/inactive') that may be redundant or overly technical for an AI agent. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the API endpoint adds clutter without clear value.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination handling, or error conditions. For a list tool with pagination parameters, more context on behavior and output is needed to guide the agent 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 clear descriptions for all parameters (project_id, page, per_page, sort). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents them. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'List Project inactive users.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('Project inactive users'), and scope ('Project'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_company_inactive_users'), though the context implies it's project-specific.

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 mentions '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/users/inactive', which hints at the API endpoint but does not specify usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons with similar tools like 'list_company_inactive_users' or 'list_project_users'.

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