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 mentions 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/timesheets', implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if entries are validated, if it's idempotent, or what happens on partial failures. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and the other providing the HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the endpoint details, while informative, could be considered slightly redundant if the tool's metadata already includes this, but it does not waste space.

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 bulk creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return values, error handling, or any system-specific behaviors like rate limits or validation rules. For a tool that likely involves significant data mutation, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 parameters 'company_id' and 'timecard_entries' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as the structure of timecard entries or constraints on the array. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Bulk Create Timecard Entries' which clearly indicates the verb (create) and resource (timecard entries) in bulk. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_timecard_entry' or 'bulk_create_time_and_material_timecards', leaving the scope vague regarding what specific timecard entries are created.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as when bulk creation is preferred over single entry creation, or any constraints like permissions or system limits. The sibling list includes many bulk and single-create tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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