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 mentions 'GET' (implying a read-only operation) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Show' returns (e.g., signature details, status). The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 action ('Show A Signature'). The additional category and API endpoint are brief but somewhat redundant. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the structure could be improved by clarifying the tool's output or context.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., signature data, paginated results) or its role in timesheet workflows. The lack of behavioral and output details leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the four parameters. Baseline score of 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 'Show A Signature. [Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timesheets/signatures/{id}' states the action ('Show A Signature') and resource (timesheets/signatures), but is vague about what 'Show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata). It includes a category tag and API endpoint, but the purpose lacks specificity compared to siblings like 'show_a_signature_company' or 'show_a_signature_project_v1.0', without clear differentiation.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for timesheet approvals), or exclusions. Sibling tools include similar 'show' operations, but no distinctions are made, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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