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 Plan' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits: no information on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. The HTTP method (POST) hints at creation, but no further behavioral details are given.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence with a tag and HTTP method. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Create BIM Plan'). However, it is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently concise, as it lacks necessary explanatory content. Still, within its brevity, it avoids redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a BIM Plan is, what the creation entails, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that likely creates a significant project artifact, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the operation fully.

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: project_id (unique identifier), view (enum for response schema), bim_plan (string). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not compensate or clarify ambiguous terms like 'bim_plan' content.

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 Plan. [Preconstruction/BIM] POST /rest/v1.0/bim_plans' restates the tool name ('Create BIM Plan') without adding meaningful specificity. It includes a category tag and HTTP method, but does not explain what a BIM Plan is, what resources it creates, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_a_batch_of_bim_plans'. This is borderline tautological with minimal added value.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), when it's appropriate, or differentiate it from sibling tools (e.g., batch creation tools). Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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