Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Update' and 'PATCH', implying a mutation, but does not clarify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 parts: a tautological title and an endpoint reference. However, it lacks front-loaded useful information and wastes space on redundant details. While not verbose, it fails to structure information helpfully for an agent.

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 (8 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's role in workflows, typical update scenarios, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, more context is needed to guide proper invocation.

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 8 parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between fields like 'time_and_material_entry_id' and 'timecard_time_type_id'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 'Update Time And Material Timecard' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and a PATCH endpoint, but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., modify hours, status, or other fields) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_time_and_material_timecard' or 'bulk_update_time_and_material_timecards'.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing timecard ID), differentiate from create or bulk update operations, or specify typical use cases. This leaves the agent with no context for selection among related tools.

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