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 states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. The API endpoint (PATCH) hints at partial updates, but this isn't explained. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 a single sentence with the core action, plus a category tag and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the key information ('Update equipment timecard entry (Project)'). The API endpoint could be considered extraneous but doesn't significantly harm conciseness. It's efficient but could be more structured.

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 (15 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, the response format, or error handling. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, the description should provide more context about behavior and outcomes.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 15 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), 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 states 'Update equipment timecard entry (Project)' which clearly indicates the verb (update) and resource (equipment timecard entry). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_timecard_entry_project' or 'update_equipment_timecard_entry_company' (if those exist in the sibling list, though not explicitly named). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the API endpoint, but these don't help an agent decide between similar tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with other update tools.

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