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 of BIM Plans' which implies a write operation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The HTTP method 'POST' is included, but this is technical detail rather than behavioral context. The description lacks crucial information for safe and effective use.

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 states the core purpose. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which is slightly technical but not excessive. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be more structured by 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 batch creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the expected input format for 'bim_plans', the response format, error handling, or any constraints on batch size. For a mutation tool with undocumented behavioral traits, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 fully documents the parameters (project_id, view, bim_plans). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as the structure of 'bim_plans' array items or the implications of the 'view' enum. 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 ('Create a batch of BIM Plans') and the resource ('BIM Plans'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bim_plan' (singular) or 'create_a_batch_of_bim_model_revision_plans', leaving some ambiguity about scope and alternatives.

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 mentions '[Preconstruction/BIM]' as a context hint, but this is vague and does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose batch creation over single creation. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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