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 'Reactivate company user', implying a mutation that changes user status, but does not specify required permissions, side effects (e.g., re-enabling login), or rate limits. The mention of '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/users/inactive/{id}' hints at an HTTP method and endpoint, but does not clearly explain behavioral traits like idempotency or error conditions.

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 brief purpose statement and an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, the endpoint detail may be overly technical and not essential for an AI agent's understanding, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on required permissions, what 'reactivate' entails (e.g., restoring access), potential errors, or the response format. The endpoint reference adds some context but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and output details needed for safe and effective use.

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 both parameters: 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company' and 'id' as 'ID of the user'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra detail in the description.

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 'Reactivate company user' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'reactivate_company_vendor' or 'reactivate_project_user'. The description fails to clarify what 'reactivate' entails or what a 'company user' is in this context.

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., user must be inactive), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'reactivate_project_user' for project-level reactivation. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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