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 'List all Timesheets' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The mention of 'GET' hints at non-destructive behavior, but lacks explicit assurance or details on response format, error handling, or side effects.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, efficiently stating the action and resource. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the GET endpoint adds minor context but doesn't detract from clarity. It's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters (with one required), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only safety, pagination, error handling), response format, and usage context. For a list operation with filtering parameters, more guidance on how filters work or typical use cases would be helpful.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'List all Timesheets' which implies the 'project_id' is required for scoping, but this is already clear from the schema's required field. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 verb ('List') and resource ('Timesheets'), specifying 'all' to indicate scope. It distinguishes from potential siblings by not filtering, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and a GET endpoint, but these are contextual tags and technical details, not usage instructions. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tool comparisons.

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