Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/me', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but does not explicitly state safety (non-destructive), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe invocation.

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 tool's purpose, though it includes redundant technical details. It wastes no words but could be more structured (e.g., separating functional intent from endpoint). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 incomplete. It fails to explain what user information is returned (e.g., profile, permissions) or handle the complexity of four optional parameters (like pagination for user info, which seems unusual). The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'company_id' for unique identifier). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description does not explain why parameters like 'page' and 'per_page' are relevant for a user info tool, leaving a minor gap.

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 User Info. [Platform - Developer Tools/Platform Services] GET /rest/v1.0/me' restates the tool name ('Show User Info') and adds technical details (platform and endpoint), but it lacks specificity about what user information is shown (e.g., current authenticated user's details). It does not clearly distinguish from siblings, as many sibling tools also retrieve information (e.g., 'show_a_bid_within_a_company'). This is a tautology with minimal added value.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication context), use cases, or comparisons with other user-related tools. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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