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 View Folder' and an HTTP POST, implying a mutation but without details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it affects existing folders), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a creation 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 parts: the action and an HTTP method/category. However, it lacks structure and front-loading of critical information (e.g., purpose or context), and the category tag '[Preconstruction/BIM]' adds minimal value without explanation, making it somewhat under-specified rather than efficiently 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 of a creation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a BIM View Folder is, its role, required permissions, or what the creation entails (e.g., default settings, validation rules). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptions for both parameters: 'project_id' as a unique identifier and 'bim_view_folder' as an object (though its description 'bim_view_folder' is minimal). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema provides sufficient baseline documentation, justifying a score of 3.

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 View Folder. [Preconstruction/BIM] POST /rest/v1.0/bim_view_folders' restates the tool name ('Create BIM View Folder') and adds only a category tag and HTTP method, which is tautological. It does not specify what a BIM View Folder is, what it contains, or its purpose in the context of BIM or Preconstruction, making it vague beyond the basic verb+resource.

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., existing project or BIM model), constraints, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_batch_of_bim_view_folder_by_path' or 'create_or_find_bim_view_folder_by_path'), leaving the agent with no context for appropriate usage.

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