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 only states 'List Timecard Data' and includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/timesheets', which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 with three elements: the purpose statement, a category tag, and the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, though the endpoint detail might be more technical than necessary for an agent.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, pagination behavior, error cases, and how to interpret results like timecard data. The endpoint hint is minimal, and without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient context for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., date formats, pagination). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents inputs.

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 'List Timecard Data' states the verb ('List') and resource ('Timecard Data'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Timecard Data' entails (e.g., time entries, sheets) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_timecard_entries' or 'list_timesheets' in the provided list, making it vague in context.

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, context (e.g., project vs. company scope), or refer to sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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