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 mentions 'List Project Users' but fails to describe key behaviors: it does not indicate if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, if results are paginated (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not stated), or what the output format is. The HTTP method 'GET' suggests a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated in the description text.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase plus a technical endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('List Project Users') and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the description serves a purpose, making it efficient despite its brevity.

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 (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior, output, or usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context about what the tool returns, how to handle pagination, or any operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters, including enums for 'view' and 'sort'. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 when the description adds no param info, which applies here.

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 Project Users' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what 'list' entails (e.g., retrieving, filtering, paginating) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_project_people' or 'list_company_users_v1_0', which might serve similar purposes. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_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 (e.g., required permissions), typical use cases, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_project_people' or 'list_company_users_v1_0'. Without any usage context, an agent must infer applicability solely from the name and schema.

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