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 implies a read operation ('Show' and 'GET'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The HTTP method and endpoint hint at a safe retrieval, but critical details like authentication needs or pagination behavior are missing.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The inclusion of the API path adds technical context efficiently. However, it lacks structure that could enhance clarity, such as separating functional intent from technical 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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') in a 'show' operation, nor does it describe the return value. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior and results, which it fails to 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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'ID of the user', 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 meaningful specificity. It mentions '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.1/users/{id}' which provides some technical context, but does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific user within a company). Compared to sibling tools like 'show_company_user_v1_0' or 'show_company_user_v1_1_1', it lacks differentiation.

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 compare with similar tools (e.g., other 'show_company_user' variants or list tools). Without any usage instructions, 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.