Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Reactivate' implies a state-changing write operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether reactivation is reversible, what happens to user access, or typical response format. The API path fragment hints at a PATCH operation but adds minimal practical context.

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 not appropriately structured. 'Reactivate project user..' is under-specified, and the appended '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/users/inactive/{id}' is technical noise that doesn't help the agent. It's not front-loaded with useful information and wastes space with API details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what reactivation entails, success conditions, error cases, or return values. For a tool that changes user state, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 ('Unique identifier for the project', 'ID of the user'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies. No additional value is provided.

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 project user..' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'reactivate_company_user' or 'reactivate_project_vendor'. The ellipsis and appended API path fragment add noise but no meaningful purpose explanation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must be inactive), context for reactivation, or differences from similar sibling tools like 'reactivate_company_user'. This leaves the agent without any usage context.

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