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 only implies a read operation via 'GET' but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it's safe (non-destructive), what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or the format of returned data. The description adds minimal value beyond the HTTP method.

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 (one sentence plus a URL) and front-loaded, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The sentence 'Show BIM Geometry File Bundle.' is vague, and the bracketed '[Preconstruction/BIM]' adds minimal context. While not verbose, it fails to use its brevity effectively to convey purpose.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'BIM Geometry File Bundle' is, what data is returned, how pagination works, or the implications of different 'view' options. For a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to guide the agent.

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., 'BIM Geometry File Bundle ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.', enum details for 'view'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Geometry File Bundle. [Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_geometry_file_bundles/{id}' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and adds a URL pattern. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'Show' means (e.g., retrieve, display, fetch details). While it hints at a read operation via 'GET', it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_bim_file' or 'show_bim_model'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when BIM geometry files are needed), or comparisons to sibling tools. The agent is left with no usage instructions beyond the implicit 'GET' method.

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