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 a PATCH operation, implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions (e.g., Directory Admin for certain fields as noted in the schema), side effects, rate limits, or response format. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the implied mutation.

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 brief functional statement and a technical endpoint reference. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient but under-specified for a tool with 30 parameters.

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 (30 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update operation's scope, permissions, or behavioral expectations. For a mutation tool with rich schema but no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., permissions for 'email_address'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without additional value from the description.

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' states the verb and resource but is vague. It does not specify what fields can be updated or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_company_user_v1_2' or 'update_company_user_v1_3', which are listed. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.1/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}' adds technical context but does not clarify the functional purpose beyond the name.

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. Sibling tools include multiple versions (e.g., 'update_company_user_v1_2', 'update_company_user_v1_3'), but the description does not explain differences or when this specific version is appropriate. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.

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