Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate that this is a write operation (creates new data), what permissions are required, whether it triggers validations or workflows, or what happens on success/failure. The description is silent on all critical behavioral aspects for a creation tool.

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?

While concise, the description is under-specified and wastes space on irrelevant details like '[Project Management/Field Productivity] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/time_and_material_timecards', which doesn't help an AI agent. The core purpose is stated but lacks necessary context, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the system, what a time and material timecard is, or how it relates to other entities. For a creation tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to ensure 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 all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides sufficient detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full load.

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 Time And Material Timecard' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction and doesn't explain what a 'Time And Material Timecard' is or how it differs from other timecard tools (e.g., 'create_timecard_entry'). This provides minimal guidance beyond the obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a time and material entry), or sibling tools like 'create_timecard_entry' or 'bulk_create_time_and_material_timecards'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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