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 implies a mutation operation ('Update') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, what happens with validation errors, or the response format. The API path suggests it's a PATCH operation, but this is not explained in the description text itself, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase followed by an API path in brackets, which is not well-integrated. While brief, it fails to convey necessary information efficiently, making it less helpful despite its brevity. The structure is not front-loaded with actionable details.

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 information on behavioral aspects, error handling, permissions, and output expectations. The API path hint adds some context but does not compensate for the missing details needed for effective tool invocation in a project management system.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'date', though 'id' is minimally described as 'ID'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain the relationship between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 Timesheet' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'Timesheet' but lacks specificity about what fields can be updated or the scope. The API path hint '[Project Management/Field Productivity] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timesheets/{id}' provides some context but is not integrated into a clear purpose statement.

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 sibling tools list includes 'create_timesheet' and 'delete_timesheet', but the description does not mention these or any prerequisites, conditions, or typical scenarios for updating versus creating. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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