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 mentions 'List BIM Plans' and an HTTP method/endpoint, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'List' and 'GET'), pagination behavior (hinted by 'page' and 'per_page' params but not explained), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. 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 Plans.' and '[Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_plans'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second part includes technical details (endpoint) that might be redundant in an MCP context, 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 6 parameters (including pagination and filtering), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of BIM plan objects), pagination behavior, or how filters work. For a list tool with multiple parameters, 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 Plans' states the action ('List') and resource ('BIM Plans'), which is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_bim_model_revision_plans' or 'list_bim_plans' (which might be a duplicate), making it vague about scope. The inclusion of '[Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_plans' adds technical context but doesn't enhance purpose clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., project context), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_bim_model_revision_plans'. It merely states the action without usage instructions.

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