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' implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error conditions. The mention of 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timesheets/update_approval' hints at an API endpoint but adds no practical behavioral context for an agent.

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 with two parts: a functional statement and an API endpoint reference. While concise, the API endpoint detail is extraneous for an AI agent's tool selection and does not front-load useful information. It avoids verbosity but includes irrelevant technical details that don't aid understanding.

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 inadequate. It lacks information on what the update entails (e.g., status values, approval workflows), expected outcomes, error handling, or system impacts. The presence of sibling tools like 'update_timesheet' and 'create_timesheet' suggests a need for clearer differentiation and completeness.

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 both parameters: 'project_id' as a unique identifier and 'timesheets' as an array of Timesheet objects. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented, meeting the baseline score 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 'Update timesheet status' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'timesheet status', but lacks specificity about what status updates entail (e.g., approval, rejection, submission) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_timesheet' or 'create_timesheet'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction. Sibling tools include many timesheet-related operations, but no differentiation is offered.

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