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. It states 'Update company user' which implies a mutation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions (e.g., Directory Admin for certain fields), side effects, or error handling. The endpoint path is given but does not add meaningful behavioral context.

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 very concise with only one sentence, but it wastes space on technical details like '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.3/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}' which are not helpful for an AI agent. It is front-loaded with the purpose but could be more efficient by omitting the endpoint.

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, mutation tool, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important constraints like admin permissions for certain fields. The agent is left with significant gaps despite the detailed schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 30 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even a summary of key fields. However, the baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have highlighted critical parameters like permissions for email_address.

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' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is vague about what fields can be updated and lacks specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_company_user_v1_1' or 'update_company_user_v1_2', leaving ambiguity about version differences.

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 a PATCH endpoint, but this is technical jargon that does not help an AI agent understand usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools.

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