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 entries' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, paginated, or has rate limits. The mention of 'GET /rest/v1.0/timecard_entries' hints at an HTTP method but doesn't add meaningful context about safety, performance, 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 concise with two parts: a clear action statement and an API endpoint reference. It's front-loaded with the purpose, though the endpoint detail might be extraneous for an AI agent. No wasted sentences, but could be more structured for clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with 5 parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured support, more context is needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema adequately documents all parameters (e.g., date ranges, pagination). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 entries' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('timecard entries'), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_timecard_entries_company' or 'list_timecard_entries_project' that appear in the sibling list. It lacks specificity about scope or filtering nuances.

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 any prerequisites, context, or constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the input schema alone. The sibling list includes similar tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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