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. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, error handling, or side effects. The mention of 'PATCH' in the endpoint hints at partial updates, but this is not explicitly explained. The description lacks critical information for safe and correct invocation.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, but includes extraneous technical details like '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the API endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/timecard_entries/{id}', which are not helpful for an AI agent. These details clutter the description without adding value for tool selection or invocation. The structure could be improved by focusing solely on functional intent.

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 updating a timecard entry (a mutation operation with a nested object parameter), the description is inadequate. No annotations are provided to indicate safety or side effects, and there is no output schema. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or any context about the 'timecard_entry' object structure. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, this leaves too many gaps for reliable use.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'ID of the timecard entry', 'Timecard Entry object'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'timecard entry' generically but does not elaborate on the structure or constraints of the 'timecard_entry' object. Given the high schema coverage, 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('timecard entry (Company)'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_timecard_entry_project' by specifying 'Company' scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the list. The description is specific but could be more precise about what fields can be updated.

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 mentions '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the API endpoint, but this is technical metadata rather than usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from similar update operations in the sibling list.

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