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 implies a read-only operation ('show' and 'GET'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The technical endpoint hint adds some context but lacks operational details needed 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 parts: a functional statement ('Show BIM File') and a technical hint ('[Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_files/{id}'). It's front-loaded but could be more structured; the technical part is useful but might clutter the purpose. No wasted sentences, though it's slightly terse.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page'), or error handling. For a read operation 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%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'id', 'project_id', 'view', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., 'id' must belong to 'project_id') or usage of 'view' enum values. 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 'Show BIM File' states the action (show) and resource (BIM File), but it's vague about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, display metadata). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'show_bim_file_extraction' or 'show_bim_model', which are also read operations on BIM-related resources. The inclusion of '[Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_files/{id}' adds technical context but doesn't clarify the functional purpose 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a BIM file ID), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'list_bim_files' for listing files versus showing a specific one. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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