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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/timecard_entries/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety (non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 the inclusion of the HTTP endpoint and category tag ('[Project Management/Field Productivity]') could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's efficiently structured in a single sentence.

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 4 parameters. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., what a 'timecard entry' contains), pagination behavior (how page/per_page interact with id), or error handling. For a read operation with structured inputs, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 all parameters (id, company_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or typical values. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the inputs.

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 clearly states the action ('Show') and resource ('timecard entry (Company)'), distinguishing it from generic list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_timecard_entry_project' or 'list_timecard_entries_company', which would require more specific scope clarification.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific company_id), comparison to sibling tools (like list_timecard_entries_company for multiple entries), or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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