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 of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it's a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state this or discuss any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal value 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 with no wasted words, consisting of a single sentence followed by category and endpoint information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the endpoint detail could be considered extraneous for an AI agent, though it doesn't significantly detract from clarity. The structure is efficient but could be more informative.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'timesheet to budget configuration' entails, what the output looks like, or how pagination works. For a configuration retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context about the returned data structure and typical use cases.

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 all three parameters (company_id, page, per_page) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how these parameters affect the configuration retrieval or provide usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 timesheet to budget configuration' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds the category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/timesheets/timesheet_to_budget_configuration', which provides some context but doesn't clearly explain what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves configuration settings, displays mapping rules). The verb 'Show' is vague compared to more specific alternatives like 'Retrieve' or 'Display'.

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. Given the sibling tools list includes 'create_timesheet_to_budget_configuration' and 'update_timesheet_to_budget_configuration', there's a clear family of tools for this resource, but the description doesn't differentiate this read operation from the create/update operations or suggest any prerequisites or typical use cases.

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