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' (implying a write/mutation operation) and includes a POST endpoint, which hints at creation behavior. However, it lacks critical details: required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and does not adequately disclose behavioral traits 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 very concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details (like the endpoint). The brevity is efficient but borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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 creation tool with nested objects) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a BIM Model Revision Plan is, what the creation entails, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 parameters 'project_id' and 'bim_model_revision_plan' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain the structure of 'bim_model_revision_plan' or provide examples. 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 states the action ('Create') and resource ('BIM Model Revision Plan'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_batch_of_bim_model_revision_plans' or 'create_bim_model_revision', leaving the scope ambiguous. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what a 'BIM Model Revision Plan' entails compared to similar tools.

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]' and a POST endpoint, but this is technical context rather than usage instructions. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose batch creation, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_bim_model_revision'.

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