Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List') and includes an API endpoint, but fails to describe critical behaviors like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 15 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 a single sentence, but it is not front-loaded with the most critical information. It includes an API endpoint and category tag ('[Project Management/Field Productivity]'), which may be extraneous for tool selection. While efficient, it lacks structural clarity for immediate comprehension.

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 (15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like pagination, filtering logic, or error handling, which are essential for a list operation with many options. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, but it does not.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining filter interactions or default behaviors. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 ('timecard entries (Company)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_timecard_entries_project' or 'list_timecard_entries', which are implied but not named, preventing a perfect score.

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, such as project-specific timecard listing tools. It mentions the API endpoint but offers no context about usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without practical direction.

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