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 only states 'Update timesheet to budget configuration' without explaining what this update entails—whether it's a partial or complete overwrite, if it requires specific permissions, what the side effects are, or what happens to existing data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 extremely concise—a single sentence followed by a category tag and API path. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it could benefit from more explanatory content. However, every word earns its place, and there's no redundant information. The structure is clean but minimal.

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 configuration update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the configuration does, why one would update it, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely impacts how timesheets interact with budgets, this lack of context is problematic.

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 already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 states the tool updates a 'timesheet to budget configuration', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't clarify what this configuration actually controls or how it differs from other timesheet-related tools (like 'update_timesheet' or 'create_timesheet_to_budget_configuration'). The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks differentiation from sibling tools.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or what problem this configuration solves. Given the many sibling tools related to timesheets and budgets, this absence of context makes it difficult for an agent to know when this specific update operation is appropriate.

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