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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create Timeline Event' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response looks like (since no output schema exists). The description adds minimal value beyond the implied mutation.

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 (one sentence plus API path) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The API path inclusion adds technical detail but doesn't improve usability for an AI agent. While not verbose, it fails to front-load critical information about the tool's purpose or usage.

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 (8 required parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'timeline event' is in this context, what the creation entails, or what the agent should expect as a result. For a mutation tool with significant parameter requirements and no structured output information, the description should provide more contextual guidance.

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 8 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company', 'ISO 8601 format', '33 possible values', enum values). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Timeline Event' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., other 'create_' tools). The inclusion of the API endpoint path '[Project Management/Scheduling] POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/schedules/{schedule_id}/timeline_events' provides some context but doesn't articulate the tool's purpose beyond the name.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when/when-not statements, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing company, project, schedule), and no reference to sibling tools like 'update_timeline_event_v2_0' or 'delete_timeline_event_v2_0'. The agent is left with no usage context.

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