Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/equipment_timecard_entries/{id}', which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety, permissions, rate limits, or response format. The description adds the HTTP method and path, which is useful, but lacks critical behavioral details like pagination handling (implied by page/per_page params) or error conditions.

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 it could be more informative. The structure includes the tool's context '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and API endpoint, which is efficient but not optimally organized 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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions the API endpoint but fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, or how pagination parameters (page, per_page) function. For a read operation with pagination, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description. The description does not compensate or add value here.

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 equipment timecard entry (Project)' restates the tool name and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource (equipment timecard entry) and scope (Project), but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Show' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_equipment_timecard_entries_project' (implied plural). The description is tautological with the name, offering little additional clarity.

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, or sibling tools. Given the sibling list includes many 'show' and 'list' tools, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent guessing about appropriate selection.

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