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 states 'Bulk delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletions are permanent or reversible, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on partial failures. The API endpoint hint ('DELETE') confirms it's a write operation, but lacks operational context.

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 front-loads the core action ('Bulk delete BIM Model Revision Viewpoints') and includes the API endpoint for context. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating functional description from technical 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 bulk deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, side effects, error handling, and response format. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap, leaving the agent without crucial context for safe and effective use.

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: 'project_id' as a unique identifier and 'ids' as an array of viewpoint IDs to delete. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Bulk delete') and the resource ('BIM Model Revision Viewpoints'), which is specific and unambiguous. It also includes the API endpoint context ('[Preconstruction/BIM] DELETE /rest/v1.0/bim_model_revision_viewpoints/bulk_delete'), which reinforces the purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_bim_model_revision_viewpoint' (singular delete), though the 'bulk' prefix implies a difference.

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 (e.g., permissions needed), when bulk deletion is appropriate compared to single deletions, or any constraints. The sibling list includes many delete tools, but no comparison is made.

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