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 a POST request, implying a write operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether this action is reversible, if it triggers notifications, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., confirmation ID, error handling). The multipart/form-data note in the schema description is not echoed here.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timesheets/signatures' is redundant with the tool name and doesn't add value for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., success response, error cases), the impact on timesheet status, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 each parameter's purpose and format. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters, such as typical values for 'signature_text' or how 'data' attachments are sourced. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 the action ('Create Signature for Timesheet') and resource ('Timesheet'), but it's vague about what a 'signature' entails in this context (e.g., digital approval, upload of a scanned signature). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_signature_for_time_and_material_entry' or 'create_signature_for_timesheet_company', leaving ambiguity about project-specific vs. company-wide scope.

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. The description includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and an API endpoint, but these don't inform the agent about prerequisites, typical workflows, or distinctions from similar signature tools in the sibling list.

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