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 implies a read operation ('Show') and includes an HTTP GET method, suggesting it's non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or output behavior. The API endpoint hints at pagination parameters, but the description doesn't explain how pagination works or what the tool returns. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two parts: a purpose statement and an API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the tool's action and resource, and the endpoint provides additional technical context without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more structured by separating usage hints from the endpoint.

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 (retrieving a specific entry with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'Time And Material Entry' is, how pagination interacts with the required 'id' parameter, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 the four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Time And Material Entry' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It specifies the resource ('Time And Material Entry') and includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and API endpoint, but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Show' and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_all_time_and_material_entry'). This provides basic purpose but is vague and redundant.

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 any prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'list_all_time_and_material_entry' or 'show_time_and_material_equipment_log'. This leaves the agent with no usage instructions.

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