Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update Timesheet' without indicating whether this is a partial/full update, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 ('Update Timesheet') but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The additional API path information '[Project Management/Field Productivity] PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/project_timesheet_timecard_entries/{id}' is technical detail that doesn't enhance agent understanding, though it doesn't add significant bloat.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, what the response contains, or error conditions. Given the complexity of timesheet systems and the lack of structured metadata, this description leaves critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema already fully documents the three parameters (project_id, id, date), 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 'Update Timesheet' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource (Timesheet) and verb (Update) but lacks details about what fields can be updated or the scope of the operation, failing to distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'update_timecard_entry' or 'update_timesheet_status'.

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, constraints, or sibling tools, leaving the agent with no context for selection among the many update-related tools 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.