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 indicates a PATCH operation, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the signature is overwritten or appended, error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for safe 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the core action and context. The inclusion of the HTTP method and endpoint ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timecard_entries/{id}/sign') is slightly technical but not wasteful. It could be more front-loaded by emphasizing the action first, but it's appropriately sized.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or side effects. The agent lacks sufficient information to understand the full impact of invoking this tool, especially for a write operation in a project management context.

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 (ID of timecard entry, project ID, signature ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is well-documented, meeting the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 timecard entry signature') and resource ('Project'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from generic signature updates by specifying 'Project' context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'update_timecard_entry_signature_company' (not listed but plausible).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' as a category, but this is generic and doesn't help the agent choose between this and other signature-related tools (e.g., for company-level timecards). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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