Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Show BIM File Extraction' and an HTTP GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'show' entails (e.g., returns metadata, status, or files). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 restatement of the name and an API endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with useful information and includes redundant details (the name). While brief, it lacks effective structure to guide the agent, making it minimally adequate but not efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that is vague, it is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. The description fails to explain what 'show' means in terms of output, how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page', or the context of BIM file extractions. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate or add value, but the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 Extraction. [Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_file_extractions/{id}' restates the tool name and adds an API endpoint, but does not clearly explain what the tool does. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, making it vague about whether this retrieves details, lists, or displays something specific about BIM file extractions. The mention of 'Preconstruction/BIM' provides some context but is insufficient for 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, related tools, or scenarios for its use. Given the sibling tools include many 'list_' and 'show_' operations, there is no differentiation, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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