Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update BIM Model Revision' and includes an HTTP method (PATCH), implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 an API endpoint hint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the '[Preconstruction/BIM]' tag is somewhat cryptic and could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the update does (e.g., fields modifiable), success/error responses, or security implications. For a 3-parameter PATCH operation, more context is needed to guide the agent 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 (e.g., 'BIM Model Revision ID'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that 'project_id' might be for validation) or usage. With high schema coverage, baseline 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 Revision' clearly states the action (update) and resource (BIM Model Revision), but it's vague about what 'update' entails—does it modify metadata, content, or status? It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_bim_model_revision' and 'delete_bim_model_revision' by being an update operation, but lacks specificity on scope.

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 includes '[Preconstruction/BIM]' which hints at domain context, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., existing revision ID), exclusions, or compare to other update tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'update_bim_model', 'update_bim_plan').

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