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 only states 'Show timecard entry' and includes a category tag and API endpoint, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but this is insufficient for full transparency.

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 brief parts: 'Show timecard entry' and '[Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/timecard_entries/{id}'. It is front-loaded but includes an API endpoint that may be redundant. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity of a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context such as the tool's behavior, return format, error conditions, and how it differs from similar tools. The API endpoint hint does not compensate for these gaps.

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 (id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 timecard entry' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context beyond the name, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'show_timecard_entry_company' or 'show_timecard_entry_project'.

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 any sibling tools, leaving 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.