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 mentions a GET operation, implying a read-only action, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains (e.g., plan details, pagination behavior). The technical endpoint detail adds minimal value beyond implying a safe read operation, but critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single sentence but includes unnecessary technical details ('[Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_model_revision_plans/{id}') that do not aid the agent. It is not front-loaded with clear functional intent, and the extra information wastes space without adding value, making it inefficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and required 'id' and 'project_id'. It fails to explain what a BIM Model Revision Plan is, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context. For a read operation with complexity, this leaves significant gaps for 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%, 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, such as explaining the 'view' enum implications or pagination defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states the tool shows a BIM Model Revision Plan, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_bim_model_revision' or 'list_bim_model_revision_plans'), and the inclusion of '[Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_model_revision_plans/{id}' adds technical noise without clarifying the functional purpose. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or any comparison with sibling tools like 'list_bim_model_revision_plans' or 'show_bim_model_revision'. There is no explicit or implied usage context, leaving the agent without direction.

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