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 mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what's implied by the tool 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 extremely concise - just one sentence with an additional context tag. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be argued it's too brief. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the HTTP method/path might be better placed elsewhere.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the paginated nature, filtering capabilities, view options, or what the tool returns. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema for understanding, which is insufficient for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't mention the required project_id, filtering options, pagination, or view modes. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 states 'List BIM Model Revisions' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. The addition of '[Preconstruction/BIM]' provides some context, but the purpose remains generic without specifying what kind of listing this provides (filtered, paginated, etc.).

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling list tools (list_bim_files, list_bim_models, list_bim_model_revision_viewpoints, etc.), but no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The HTTP method and path don't constitute usage guidance.

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