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 states 'Show company user' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), address authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied GET method, 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: a brief purpose statement and a technical endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core function, though the purpose statement is vague. There is no wasted verbiage, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point due to under-specification.

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 (a read operation with 4 parameters, 2 required) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information is returned about the user, potential error responses, or how pagination parameters (page, per_page) function in a 'show' context. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively without trial and error.

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 (e.g., 'ID of the user'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not need to compensate. It neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 (e.g., retrieve details, view profile) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_company_user_v1_0' or 'show_company_user_v1_1', which appear to be similar versions. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.3/users/{id}' adds 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 (e.g., required permissions), differentiate it from other user-related tools (e.g., 'list_company_users_v1_3'), or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone, which is insufficient.

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