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' (implying a mutation) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are partial or full (PATCH method hint), idempotency, or error handling. The mention of '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timesheets' adds some API context but is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 action ('Update Timecard Entries'). The additional API path and category information are brief and relevant. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what the update entails (e.g., partial updates via PATCH), expected response format, error conditions, or how 'timecard_entries' array should be structured. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool 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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Timecard Entries' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Timecard Entries'), but it is generic and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_timecard_entries' or 'update_timecard_entry' (singular). It lacks specificity about scope (e.g., batch vs. single) or context, making it only minimally adequate.

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 a project_id), differentiate from bulk operations, or specify 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.