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 indicates a GET operation (implying read-only) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). The description lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. It repeats the tool name, includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' that adds little value, and appends the HTTP method and endpoint. While concise, it fails to front-load essential information about the tool's purpose, making it less helpful for quick understanding.

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. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., timesheet details, entries, metadata) or behavioral aspects like pagination. For a tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to compensate, which 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for project_id, id, page, and per_page. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents each parameter. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified parameter interactions (e.g., pagination applies to timesheet entries).

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 Timesheet. [Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timesheets/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name ('Show A Timesheet') and adds minimal context. It specifies the HTTP method and endpoint but lacks a clear, specific verb+resource explanation of what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve a specific timesheet by ID within a project). It does not distinguish from sibling tools, many of which are also 'show' operations.

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., needing a project and timesheet ID), or sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., list_all_timesheets). The endpoint path implies usage but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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