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 only states 'List' and 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (hinted by page/per_page parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., array of extraction objects). The description lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 (one sentence) but under-specified. It front-loads the core action ('List BIM File Extractions') but wastes characters on redundant information like the HTTP method and category label, which do not add value for an AI agent. It could be more structured by explaining the purpose briefly.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'BIM File Extractions' are, the expected output format, or how pagination/filtering works. For a tool with many filter parameters and no output schema, 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 each parameter clearly documented in the schema (e.g., project_id as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description does not compensate for any gaps or provide high-level context about filtering logic.

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 'List BIM File Extractions. [Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_file_extractions' is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds only a category label and HTTP method. It does not specify what 'BIM File Extractions' are or what 'list' entails (e.g., retrieving metadata, statuses, or files). The verb 'list' is generic, and the resource 'BIM File Extractions' is unclear without domain context.

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), typical use cases, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes (e.g., other list_* tools for BIM files). 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.