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 Timesheet' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate dates, or what the response contains. The API path hint ('POST') confirms it's a creation endpoint, but no further behavioral context is given.

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 - just two phrases stating the action and showing the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the essential purpose. While efficient, it might be too minimal given the lack of other guidance, but every word earns its place.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, error conditions, or system behavior. The agent knows what to send but not what to expect back or under what constraints. For a write operation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully describes the parameters, though the description doesn't compensate with any additional context about parameter relationships or constraints.

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 Timesheet') and the resource ('Timesheet'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It also includes the API endpoint path which reinforces the purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_timecard_entry' or 'create_timecard_entry_company', which appear to be related timesheet/timecard tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_timecard_entry' or 'update_timesheet'. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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