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 states 'Create a batch' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on partial failure. The HTTP method (POST) hints at creation, but lacks crucial operational context for a mutation tool.

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—just one sentence with the core action, context tags, and HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating usage notes) but remains efficient.

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 batch creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error cases, response format, or usage context. For a mutation tool that creates multiple resources, more guidance on payload structure, success criteria, and potential pitfalls is needed to be fully helpful.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the structure of 'bim_levels' array items, the purpose of 'view', or relationships between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance it.

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 ('Create a batch of BIM Levels') and identifies the resource ('BIM Levels'), which is specific and unambiguous. It also includes context tags ([Preconstruction/BIM]) and the HTTP method (POST), which adds clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bim_level' (singular) or other batch creation tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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. There are many sibling tools for creating individual BIM levels or other batch operations, but no indication of when batch creation is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose this over other methods. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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