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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List BIM Models' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify critical behaviors like pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List BIM Models') and wastes no words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits necessary context and guidelines. While efficient, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects: what the tool returns (no output schema), how to use parameters effectively, behavioral traits like pagination or errors, and differentiation from siblings. For a list operation with multiple filters and views, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed about proper usage and expectations.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain how filters interact or the default behavior of 'view'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful context.

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 Models. [Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_models' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'list_bim_models'. It adds minimal context with the category '[Preconstruction/BIM]' and endpoint, but does not specify what 'list' entails (e.g., retrieving, filtering, paginating) or distinguish it from sibling tools. This is a basic restatement rather than a clear purpose definition.

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 any prerequisites (like required project context), compare it to similar list tools in the sibling set (e.g., other BIM-related tools), or indicate scenarios where it is appropriate. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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