Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create BIM File' without indicating if this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The API endpoint detail does not add behavioral context. For a creation 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Create BIM File'). The API detail is extraneous but does not significantly bloat the text. It's efficient, though the bracketed part could be omitted for better focus.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a creation tool with nested object parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or required permissions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'bim_file'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining what a 'BIM File Item object' entails or how to structure it. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the work.

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 states 'Create BIM File' which is a clear verb+resource combination, indicating it creates a BIM file. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bim_model' or 'create_bim_plan', and the addition of '[Preconstruction/BIM] POST /rest/v1.0/bim_files' is redundant API detail rather than clarifying purpose. It's adequate but lacks sibling distinction.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when a BIM file is needed), or compare to sibling tools like 'create_bim_model'. This leaves the agent with no usage instructions.

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