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 states 'Create BIM Model' implying a write operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the response format. The endpoint hint ('POST') suggests mutation but adds no practical context like rate limits or side effects.

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 but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tautological 'Create BIM Model' and appends technical details ('[Preconstruction/BIM] POST /rest/v1.0/bim_models') that are not helpful for an agent. While concise, it wastes space on non-actionable information instead of providing useful guidance.

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 creating a BIM model (a write operation with a nested object parameter), the description is inadequate. No annotations exist, and there is no output schema, yet the description fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or success criteria. It leaves critical gaps for a mutation tool with significant parameters.

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 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as the structure of 'bim_model' or the effect of 'view'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 Model. [Preconstruction/BIM] POST /rest/v1.0/bim_models' restates the tool name ('Create BIM Model') and adds only technical endpoint details. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'create' entails (e.g., initializing a new model, uploading data) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bim_model_revision' or 'create_bim_file', making it vague beyond the obvious.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or related tools like 'update_bim_model' or 'list_bim_models'. Without any context, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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