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. The description mentions a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state this or discuss other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The technical endpoint hint adds minimal context but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 tautological purpose statement and a technical endpoint reference. While brief, it is not front-loaded with actionable information, and the technical detail may not be immediately helpful to an AI agent without additional context. It avoids verbosity but under-specifies the tool's utility.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'showing' a company user entails, the expected output, or how pagination parameters function. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate with more detail on behavior and results, which it does not do.

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 (company_id, id, page, per_page). The description does not add any semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 'Show company user' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_company_user_v1_0_2' or 'show_company_user_v1_1'. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}' provides technical context but does not clarify the purpose in user-friendly terms.

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 any sibling tools (e.g., other 'show_company_user' variants or list tools). Without such information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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