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 Plan' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites or merges data, idempotency, or error handling. The endpoint hint ('PATCH') suggests partial updates, but this is not explained. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary 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 concise with two parts: a brief purpose statement and an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the action. However, the endpoint detail may be overly technical and not helpful for an AI agent. While efficient, it could be more structured to separate functional from technical details.

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 inadequate. It does not explain what a BIM Plan is, what the update entails, potential side effects, or expected response format. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of context leaves significant gaps for safe and correct usage.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (id, project_id, view, bim_plan). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it does not explain what 'bim_plan' string should contain or the purpose of the 'view' enum. With high schema coverage, the 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 'Update BIM Plan. [Preconstruction/BIM] PATCH /rest/v1.0/bim_plans/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update BIM Plan') without adding specificity. It includes a technical endpoint reference, but does not clarify what a BIM Plan is, what fields can be updated, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_budget_line_item' or 'update_project'. 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, context (e.g., only during preconstruction), or related tools like 'create_bim_plan' or 'show_bim_plan'. Without any usage instructions, the agent lacks direction on appropriate invocation.

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