Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show BIM Viewpoint' and includes an HTTP method hint ('GET'), which implies a read-only operation, but fails to describe any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'show' entails (e.g., returns data, pagination). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters.

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 but under-specified—it's too brief to be helpful. While it doesn't waste words, it fails to provide necessary information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized. The inclusion of '[Preconstruction/BIM] GET /rest/v1.0/bim_viewpoints/{id}' adds some structure but doesn't compensate for the lack of substantive content.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'BIM Viewpoint' is, what data is returned, or how pagination works (implied by page/per_page parameters). For a read operation with multiple parameters, this 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 Viewpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity about what the tool actually does. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, making it vague and unhelpful for distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools.

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, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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