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 Level' and an HTTP POST endpoint, implying a write operation but without details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 phrases, but it wastes space on low-value technical details (endpoint path) that don't aid the agent. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Create BIM Level'), though the structure is minimal and could be more informative.

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 (creating a nested object in a construction/BIM context), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context like what a BIM Level represents, required permissions, expected response, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 (e.g., 'project_id' as a unique identifier, 'view' with enum values, 'bim_level' as an object). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 'Create BIM Level. [Preconstruction/BIM] POST /rest/v1.0/bim_levels' restates the tool name ('Create BIM Level') and adds only technical endpoint details, which is tautological. It does not specify what a 'BIM Level' is or what creating one entails, making the purpose vague beyond the obvious verb-noun pairing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., project setup), or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_batch_of_bim_levels' or 'update_bim_level'), 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.