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 mentions 'GET' and includes pagination parameters (page, per_page), implying a read-only, paginated list operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's safe (non-destructive), doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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—two short phrases. However, it's not front-loaded with the most critical information; the API path is appended. While efficient, it could be more structured to prioritize purpose over 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 (retrieving a user with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'show' returns (user details, paginated list?), error conditions, or authentication requirements. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specificity about what 'show' means (retrieve, display details) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_company_user_v1_0', 'show_company_user_v1_1', etc. The API path hint adds technical context but doesn't 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate it from similar sibling tools (e.g., other versions like v1_0, v1_1). The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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