Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Draft Create' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not clarify if this is a safe draft creation (non-destructive), what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., whether drafts are saved temporarily). The description adds minimal behavioral context 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 but under-specified. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the HTTP method/endpoint, which adds some structure, but the core purpose is not front-loaded clearly. The single sentence is efficient but lacks essential details, making it more of a technical stub than a helpful description.

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 write operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role in creating draft timecard entries, what a draft entails, or the expected output. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context, but it does not, leaving significant gaps for the 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%, with clear descriptions for parameters (project_id, date, timecard_entries). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples for 'date' or structure of 'timecard_entries'. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Draft Create. [Project Management/Field Productivity] POST /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/project_timesheet_timecard_entries/draft_create' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name ('Draft Create') and includes a technical endpoint, but does not clearly specify the action (e.g., 'creates draft timecard entries for a project timesheet') or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'create_timecard_entry' or 'bulk_create_timecard_entries'. The purpose is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), context (e.g., for drafting vs. final submissions), or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_timecard_entry' for final entries). Without any usage instructions, the agent lacks direction.

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