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 implies a read operation ('show') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (despite 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). The API path hint suggests a GET request but adds minimal practical context for an AI agent.

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 but under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The single sentence 'Show current company user.' is front-loaded but incomplete, while the API path '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.2/companies/{company_id}/me' adds technical detail without improving clarity for an AI agent. It avoids verbosity but fails to convey necessary usage information.

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, no output schema, and a read operation with pagination parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'current company user' means (e.g., the authenticated user in context?), the response format, or how pagination works. For a tool with three parameters and potential complexity in user context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already documented (e.g., 'company_id' as a unique identifier, pagination parameters). This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like parameter interactions or default values.

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' restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It specifies the resource ('company user') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'show' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_current_company_user_v1_1' or 'show_current_company_user_v1_3'. The API path hint adds technical detail but doesn't clarify 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. With sibling tools like 'show_current_company_user_v1_1' and 'show_current_company_user_v1_3' present, the description offers no distinction or context for choosing this specific version. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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