Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it's a GET operation (implied read-only) but doesn't specify whether it requires special permissions, returns paginated results, or handles errors. The API path suggests it retrieves a specific user by ID within a company, but behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format are completely absent.

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 extremely concise with just two parts: a brief functional statement and the API path. While under-specified for completeness, it wastes no words and is front-loaded with the core purpose. The structure is clear though minimal, earning points for efficiency despite the content gaps.

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?

For a read operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'showing' a company user entails (what data is returned), doesn't address pagination behavior despite having page/per_page parameters, and provides no error handling or permission context. The lack of annotations exacerbates these gaps, making the description incomplete for effective tool 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 all four parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation purely through the schema, with the description contributing nothing extra about parameter usage or constraints.

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 without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_company_user_v1_0' or 'show_company_user_v1_1', which appear to serve similar purposes. The inclusion of the API path '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.3/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}' provides technical context but doesn't clarify the functional purpose beyond what's implied by the name.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate it from sibling tools like other 'show_company_user' versions or broader user listing tools. Without any usage instructions, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately among many similar options.

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