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. It implies a mutation ('Update'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. The HTTP method (PATCH) hints at partial updates, but this isn't explained. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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—a single sentence fragment with added technical details. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the technical details (PATCH endpoint) might be redundant if the agent already knows the API structure, but they don't add clutter.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'BIM Level' represents, what fields can be updated, the effect of the update, or what the tool returns. The sibling list includes many update tools, but no differentiation is provided. More context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (id, project_id, bim_level). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'bim_level' object contains or how updates are applied. 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 action ('Update BIM Level') and resource ('BIM Level'), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_bim_model' or 'update_bim_plan', which have similar naming patterns. The inclusion of '[Preconstruction/BIM] PATCH /rest/v1.0/bim_levels/{id}' adds technical context but doesn't clarify the functional purpose beyond the name.

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. There are many sibling update tools (e.g., 'update_bim_model', 'update_bim_plan'), but no indication of what distinguishes this one. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are mentioned.

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