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 'Create' (implying a write/mutation) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—two brief phrases—with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes API context efficiently. Every part earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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 (a mutation tool with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'timecard entry' entails, what fields are expected in the nested object, or what the tool returns. For a create operation with significant data requirements, more context is needed.

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 both parameters ('project_id' and 'timecard_entry') well-described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('timecard entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also includes the API endpoint context ('POST /rest/v1.0/timecard_entries'), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_create_timecard_entries' or 'create_timecard_entry_company', which would require a 5.

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. With multiple sibling tools like 'bulk_create_timecard_entries', 'create_timecard_entry_company', and 'create_timecard_entry_project', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. The agent must infer usage from names alone.

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