Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal behavioral context 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 very concise - just two brief phrases. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second part with API endpoint details might be technical noise that doesn't help the agent understand usage. Still, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or provide enough context for the agent to use it effectively. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to rules, baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, even with no param info in 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 'Show BIM Model Revision' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It lacks a specific verb and resource specification beyond what's implied by the name. While it includes '[Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_model_revisions/{id}' which hints at context and HTTP method, it doesn't clearly state what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific BIM model revision).

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate it from sibling tools (like other BIM-related tools in the list). The agent receives no usage instructions beyond the bare description.

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