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 Plan' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe any behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'Show' entails (e.g., returns details, supports pagination). The mention of 'GET' is minimal and does not compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence with an additional bracketed category and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Show BIM Plan') and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, as it lacks essential details that would make it more helpful.

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 insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how pagination works (implied by page/per_page parameters), or any behavioral constraints. The absence of output schema means the description should clarify return values, but it fails to do so, leaving 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%, meaning all parameters (id, project_id, view, page, per_page) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters—it does not explain their roles, relationships, or usage beyond what the schema provides. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 Plan. [Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_plans/{id}' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'show_bim_plan' with minimal elaboration. While it specifies the resource (BIM Plan) and includes a category hint ([Preconstruction/BIM]), it lacks a clear, distinct verb beyond 'Show' and does not differentiate from sibling tools. This provides little value beyond the name itself.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. Without any usage instructions, the agent is left with no direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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