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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a GET operation, implying a read-only, non-destructive action, but does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The mention of '[Preconstruction/BIM]' hints at a domain context but lacks actionable behavioral details. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 brief purpose statement and a technical endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with critical information (e.g., key parameters or usage context), and the '[Preconstruction/BIM]' tag adds minor clutter without clear value. While efficient in length, it lacks structure that prioritizes agent-relevant details.

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 of a BIM model retrieval tool with 5 parameters (including pagination and view options) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value (e.g., model details, revisions), behavioral aspects like pagination handling, or error scenarios. Without annotations or an output schema, the description does not provide enough context for effective tool invocation.

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' as BIM Model ID, 'view' with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, as it only mentions the path '/rest/v1.0/bim_models/{id}' which aligns with the 'id' parameter. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Model. [Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_models/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'show_bim_model' and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource (BIM Model) and HTTP method (GET) but lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'Show', and does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_bim_model_revision', 'list_bim_models'). This is a basic restatement with some technical details but insufficient 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a BIM Model ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'list_bim_models' for listing models or 'show_bim_model_revision' for revisions. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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