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. It states 'Show' (implying a read operation) and includes a GET endpoint, suggesting it's non-destructive. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or error conditions.

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. The second part with the API endpoint adds technical context but is concise. No unnecessary sentences are present, though it could be more structured for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or authentication. For a read operation with pagination parameters, more context on output format or usage would be beneficial, but it's minimally adequate.

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 'company_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. With high coverage, 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 current company user' clearly states the verb ('Show') and resource ('current company user'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_current_company_user_v1_1', 'show_current_company_user_v1_2', etc., but the core action is clear.

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 like its versioned siblings (v1.1, v1.2, v1.3). It includes an API endpoint '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/me', which hints at context but doesn't offer explicit usage rules or prerequisites.

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