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 mentions 'POST /rest/v1.0/bim_geometry_file_bundles', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The HTTP method hint is minimal and insufficient 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 concise with two short sentences, front-loading the action. However, it includes redundant information (the tool name is repeated) and the HTTP endpoint detail adds little value without context, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (a mutation tool with a nested object parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what a BIM geometry file bundle is, its purpose, expected inputs/outputs, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the 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 already documents parameters well. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'bim_geometry_file_bundle' relates to 'project_id') or provide examples. Baseline 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 states the action ('Create BIM Geometry File Bundle') and includes a category hint ('[Preconstruction/BIM]'), but it's vague about what a 'bundle' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bim_file' or 'create_bim_model'. It repeats the tool name without elaborating on the specific resource being created.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'create_bim_file' or 'create_bim_model'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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