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' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the response format. The mention of 'POST /rest/v1.0/bim_model_revisions' hints at an HTTP method but doesn't add meaningful operational context. This leaves significant gaps 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 parts: the core purpose and an HTTP endpoint reference. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. However, the endpoint detail ('POST /rest/v1.0/bim_model_revisions') is somewhat redundant for an AI agent and could be considered minor waste, but overall it's efficient and structured.

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 a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a BIM model revision is, what the creation entails, potential side effects, or the return value. For a mutation tool in a domain like BIM, this lack of context makes it inadequate for confident use by an AI 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%, with both parameters ('project_id' and 'bim_model_revision') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, 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 Model Revision' states the action (create) and resource (BIM model revision), which is clear. However, it's somewhat vague about what a 'BIM model revision' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bim_model' or 'create_bim_model_revision_plan', which are also listed. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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 mentions '[Preconstruction/BIM]' as a context tag, but this is generic and doesn't specify prerequisites, dependencies, or when to choose this over other BIM-related creation tools. No explicit when/when-not or alternative references are present.

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