Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update company user' and an API path, failing to describe that this is a mutation operation, potential side effects (e.g., user access changes), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The schema hints at permission requirements (e.g., Directory Admin for certain fields), but the description does not surface these critical behaviors.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence with an API path. It is front-loaded but under-specified, lacking necessary detail. While not verbose, it misses opportunities to add value. The structure is clear but incomplete.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with 30 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the update operation's scope, permissions, or expected outcomes. The schema provides parameter details, but the description fails to integrate this into a coherent overview, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, detailing all 30 parameters (e.g., 'email_address' requires Directory Admin permissions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 'Update company user' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what is being updated (e.g., user details, permissions, status) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_company_user_v1_1', 'update_company_user_v1_2', or 'update_company_user_v1_3'. The API path '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}' adds technical context but does not clarify the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), constraints (e.g., which fields can be updated by whom), or sibling tools (e.g., other update versions like v1.1, v1.2, v1.3). The agent is left without any usage context.

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