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 states 'Update BIM Model' and includes a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether the update is destructive or reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The endpoint hint suggests partial updates (PATCH), but this is not explicitly explained. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with two parts: a brief purpose statement and technical endpoint details. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more front-loaded by leading with a clearer action (e.g., 'Modify properties of a BIM model'). The structure is efficient but under-specified.

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 of updating a BIM model (a nested object mutation), the description is inadequate. No annotations exist, and there is no output schema, so the description should explain the update behavior, response format, or error conditions. It fails to address these aspects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that modifies a critical resource with three required parameters.

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: 'id' (BIM Model ID), 'project_id' (Unique identifier for the project), and 'bim_model' (BIM Model). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as the structure of the 'bim_model' object or example fields. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 'Update BIM Model. [Preconstruction/BIM] PATCH /rest/v1.0/bim_models/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update BIM Model') and adds only technical endpoint details. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying metadata, geometry, or properties) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_bim_model_revision' or 'update_bim_plan'. This is a tautology with minimal added value.

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 (e.g., needing a specific BIM model ID), exclusions, or related tools for different operations (e.g., creating vs. updating BIM models). Without any usage context, the agent must infer from the name alone.

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