Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a GET operation and includes a URL path, implying a read-only, non-destructive action, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits like authentication requirements or pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters).

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 functional statement and a technical endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and the technical detail adds value without redundancy. However, it could be more structured by separating functional and technical aspects into distinct sentences 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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., user details format), error handling, authentication needs, and how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page'. The absence of an output schema means the description should compensate by explaining expected outputs, which it doesn't do.

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 schema (e.g., 'company_id' as a unique identifier, 'page' for pagination). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., pagination defaults) or provide usage examples.

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' states the action ('show') and resource ('current company user'), but it's vague about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, list users?). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_current_company_user_v1_2' or 'show_current_company_user_v1_3', leaving ambiguity about version differences. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.1/companies/{company_id}/me' adds technical context but doesn't clarify the functional purpose beyond the basic verb.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), comparison to sibling tools (e.g., 'show_current_company_user_v1_2'), or typical use cases. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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