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 'List BIM Files' and includes an HTTP method ('GET'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.

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: 'List BIM Files.' and '[Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_files'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and the additional context is brief. However, the HTTP endpoint detail may be redundant if the agent already has structured API info, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 5 parameters with a required project_id, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the response format, pagination, or how filters work. For a list tool with filtering and pagination capabilities, more context is needed 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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (project_id, view, page, per_page, filters__id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the purpose of 'view' enums or filtering logic. 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 'List BIM Files' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('BIM Files'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource type (BIM files) and includes a category tag '[Preconstruction/BIM]' for context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools in the sibling set beyond the resource name.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), exclusions, or comparisons to other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., list_bim_models, list_bim_plans). The agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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