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 only states 'Show company user' with a REST endpoint, lacking details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. While it implies a read operation, it doesn't confirm safety or describe any behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps.

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: 'Show company user' and '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.1/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}'. However, it is under-specified—the first part is tautological, and the second part is technical without explanatory value. While not verbose, it fails to use its brevity effectively to convey useful information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, combined with minimal purpose clarity, makes it inadequate for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately documents the purpose of company_id, id, page, and per_page. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description contributes no extra value.

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 merely restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb and resource clarity—while it implies retrieval, it doesn't specify what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, display information). It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_company_user_v1_0' or 'list_company_users_v1_1_1', leaving the purpose vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_company_users_v1_1_1' for multiple users). This absence leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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