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. The description only states 'Show project user' and includes a technical endpoint '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/users/{id}', which implies a read-only GET operation but does not explicitly confirm it. It lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains (e.g., user details). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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 tautological phrase and a technical endpoint. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is not front-loaded with actionable information, and the endpoint detail, while useful for developers, does not replace a clear functional description. It earns a middle score for brevity but loses points for lack of substantive content.

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 complexity of a user retrieval tool with 4 parameters (including pagination for a single-user query), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, when to use it, behavioral traits, or the nature of the response. The technical endpoint hint provides some context but is insufficient for an AI agent to understand how to invoke this tool correctly or interpret results. This leaves significant gaps in usability.

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 all parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining why pagination parameters (page, per_page) are present for a tool that seems to retrieve a single user by ID. However, since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract from the schema's clarity.

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 project user' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_project_users' (plural) or 'list_project_users', which likely list multiple users. The description fails to specify that this retrieves a single user by ID within a project context.

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 does not mention sibling tools such as 'list_project_users' (which likely lists multiple users) or 'show_company_user_v1_0' (which might show a user at the company level). There is no indication of prerequisites, like needing a specific project ID or user ID, or when this tool is appropriate over other user-related tools.

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