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 current company user' and includes an API endpoint, implying a read operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by 'page' and 'per_page' params), or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded: 'Show current company user.' The additional API endpoint detail is minimal and doesn't add clutter. However, the inclusion of '[Core/Directory]' and the endpoint might be slightly redundant if the agent already has context from the tool name, but it's not wasteful.

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 simplicity (a read operation with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, authentication, and error handling, which are crucial for a tool with no annotations. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how these parameters affect the output or their interdependencies. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show current company user.' It specifies the verb ('show') and resource ('current company user'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_current_company_user_v1_1' or 'show_current_company_user_v1_2', which appear to be similar versions, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 mentions '[Core/Directory]' and the API endpoint, but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or differences from sibling tools. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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