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 states 'Create timecard entry' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The HTTP method 'POST' is mentioned, but this is minimal context.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which is useful but could be considered extraneous. However, it wastes no words and is efficiently structured in a single sentence.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with nested objects, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on required permissions, error handling, response format, or any side effects. For a create operation with complex parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 already documents all parameters (company_id, project_id, timecard_entry). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), and specifies the scope ('Company') to differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_timecard_entry_project'. However, it does not fully distinguish from 'bulk_create_timecard_entries' or 'create_timecard_entry_v1_1' among the siblings, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 like 'create_timecard_entry_project' or bulk creation tools. It mentions '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' as a category but does not offer explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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