Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/timesheets/signatures', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., whether it triggers notifications), rate limits, or error handling. 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 brief but includes extraneous details like the HTTP endpoint and category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]', which don't aid tool selection. It's front-loaded with the core action but wastes space on implementation specifics rather than user guidance.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the purpose of creating a signature (e.g., for timesheet approval), expected outcomes, or error conditions. Given the complexity (5 parameters, 3 required), more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'company_id' as unique identifier, 'data' as attachment with multipart/form-data instructions). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, establishing a baseline score of 3.

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 'Create Signature for Timesheet' restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('Signature for Timesheet') but lacks details on what 'create' entails (e.g., digital signature upload, acknowledgment). Compared to sibling tools like 'create_signature_for_time_and_material_entry' or 'create_signature_for_timesheet_project', it doesn't distinguish scope (company vs. project).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'create_signature_for_timesheet_project' and 'create_signature_for_time_and_material_entry', but the description doesn't clarify differences (e.g., company-level vs. project-level signatures). It also omits prerequisites like required permissions or workflow context.

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