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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned but without context about its implications.

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) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the second part '[Project Management/Field Productivity] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/timesheets/timesheet_to_budget_configuration' contains redundant information (the API path doesn't add value for tool selection) and the category tag doesn't provide operational guidance. The description could be more efficiently structured.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'timesheet to budget configuration' is, what it enables, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely creates important configuration mappings, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its role and impact.

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 three parameters (company_id, line_item_type_id, erp_default_line_item_type_id) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring 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 timesheet to budget configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides a verb ('Create') and resource ('timesheet to budget configuration'), but lacks specificity about what this configuration entails or how it differs from other configuration tools. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_timesheet' or 'create_budget_configuration', it doesn't clearly distinguish its unique purpose.

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 numerous sibling tools (over 1,000 listed), including many other 'create_' tools, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what problem this specific configuration solves. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over similar options.

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