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 'GET /rest/v1.0/bim_view_folders', implying a read-only HTTP operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'List' entails (e.g., returns all folders or a subset). The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination details, error conditions, or how filters interact. For a list operation with multiple filter parameters, more context is needed to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra description.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('BIM View Folders'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_bim_files', 'list_bim_models') beyond the resource name, and the context tag '[Preconstruction/BIM]' is vague. It lacks specificity about what 'BIM View Folders' are or how they differ from other BIM entities.

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 prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools for filtering or related operations. 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.