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' (implying read-only) and includes a GET endpoint, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, though the inclusion of the API endpoint and category tag ('[Project Management/Field Productivity]') is slightly extraneous. Every sentence earns its place, but it 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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, pagination, error handling, or usage context. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at response structure, but it doesn't. It's complete enough for a simple list operation but leaves gaps for effective agent 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%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no clarification on date range logic or filter usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 tool's purpose: 'List timecard entries (Project)' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('timecard entries'), and includes the project context. It distinguishes from generic timecard listing by specifying 'Project' scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_timecard_entries_company' or 'list_timecard_entries'.

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 mentions '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the API endpoint, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools (e.g., company-level timecard listing tools).

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