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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timecard_entries/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or error behaviors. The description lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with required parameters.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it includes extraneous details like the API endpoint and category in brackets, which could be omitted for better focus. It's efficient but not perfectly streamlined.

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, no output schema, and 4 parameters (2 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'timecard entry' is, what data is returned, or any prerequisites. For a read operation with specific IDs, more context is needed to use it 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 parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even hinting at the relationship between project_id and id. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Project)' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('timecard entry'), but it's vague about what 'Show' means (retrieve details? list entries?). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying '(Project)' context, but lacks specificity on scope or output.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and API endpoint, but these don't provide actionable usage rules or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'show_timecard_entry' or 'list_timecard_entries_project'.

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