Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether updates are partial/full (PATCH vs PUT), side effects, error conditions, or response format. The endpoint hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this isn't explicitly explained.

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 but inefficiently structured. The first part 'Update timecard entry' is redundant with the name. The bracketed category and endpoint are technical details that don't aid the agent's decision-making. While concise, it wastes its limited space on low-value information instead of front-loading helpful context.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, authentication needs, or typical use cases. Given the complexity of updating a nested object (timecard_entry), more guidance is needed to help the agent use this 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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (id, project_id, timecard_entry). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the structure of the 'timecard_entry' object or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 entry' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks specificity about what fields can be updated or the resource context. While it includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/timecard_entries/{id}', these don't meaningfully explain the tool's purpose beyond the name.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing timecard entry), compare to sibling tools (like 'create_timecard_entry' or 'bulk_update_timecard_entries'), or indicate appropriate contexts. The agent receives no usage direction.

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