Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'List BIM Levels' and includes an HTTP method, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters.

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: a brief purpose statement and an HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). Every sentence earns its place, but under-specification limits effectiveness.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: no explanation of return values (BIM Levels details), pagination, filtering logic, or error scenarios. The agent cannot fully understand how to use this tool effectively based on the description alone.

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 8 parameters (e.g., 'project_id', 'view', 'filters__id'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even hinting at required parameters or default behaviors. 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 Levels. [Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_levels' restates the tool name ('list_bim_levels') without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the domain context ('Preconstruction/BIM') and HTTP method, but lacks a clear verb+resource distinction from siblings (e.g., 'list_bim_files', 'list_bim_models'). The purpose is vague beyond the 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_batch_of_bim_levels', 'show_bim_level'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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