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. It states 'Show company user' and includes an HTTP method and endpoint, implying a read-only fetch operation. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether it returns paginated results (given the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). The description is minimal and lacks essential operational 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 concise but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase followed by technical details in brackets. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it fails to provide meaningful front-loaded information that aids the agent. The structure is not effectively organized to convey purpose or usage.

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 of a user retrieval tool with 4 parameters (including pagination) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information is returned, potential response formats, or error conditions. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's behavior and output, making this description inadequate for 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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'ID of the user', 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the inputs. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified the relationship between 'id' and 'company_id' or the use of pagination 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', 'show_company_user_v1_1', etc., which appear to be similar variants. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/users/{id}' provides some technical context but does not clarify the functional purpose.

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 differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., other 'show_company_user' versions or list tools). Without any usage instructions, the 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.