Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete BIM File', implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behaviors like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., associated data removal), or error conditions. The HTTP method (DELETE) hints at mutation but lacks operational context.

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 includes redundant information (restating the name) and technical endpoint details that may not aid an AI agent. It is front-loaded with the core action but could be more structured to emphasize usage context over HTTP details.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'Delete'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool in a complex environment with many sibling tools.

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 ('BIM File ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the inputs. Baseline 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 'Delete BIM File. [Preconstruction/BIM] DELETE /rest/v1.0/bim_files/{id}' restates the tool name ('Delete BIM File') without adding specificity about what 'BIM File' entails or distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_bim_model' or 'delete_bim_plan'. It includes an HTTP method and endpoint, but this is technical detail rather than clarifying the purpose for an AI agent.

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. With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., delete_bim_model, delete_bim_plan, delete_bim_level), the description fails to indicate if this is for files versus models/revisions or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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