Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation) and includes the HTTP method 'POST', which hints at creation behavior. However, it lacks critical details: required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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—two brief sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the HTTP method for clarity. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (creation tool with nested object parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a BIM Viewpoint is, what the response contains, or error conditions. For a tool that creates a resource with unspecified nested properties, more context is needed to guide 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 in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. It mentions 'bim_viewpoint' as an object but doesn't explain its structure or required fields. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('BIM Viewpoint'), with the bracketed context '[Preconstruction/BIM]' providing domain specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on viewpoint creation rather than other BIM operations like listing or updating. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar creation tools (e.g., 'create_a_batch_of_bim_viewpoints'), 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing BIM model), compare with batch creation siblings, or specify typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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