Buildertrend MCP Server

buildertrend_status

Verify your Cotlet.dev account, available credits, and Buildertrend connection are ready before running jobs, schedules, or daily log actions.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Buildertrend are ready: account, credits and Buildertrend connection.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "buildertrend_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the three things verified (account, credits, Buildertrend connection), which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it never states that the call is read-only/side-effect free, nor what a failure or unlinked-connection outcome looks like, and with no output schema the return shape is entirely undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the verb and the three checked items front-loaded and no filler. The colon-list construction is slightly dense but each element adds information rather than repeating the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter probe the description is adequate about what is inspected, but with no output schema it should say what the agent receives back (e.g., ready/not-ready flags or credit balance) so the caller knows how to branch on the result. The absence of that, plus no side-effect statement, leaves a real gap for a preflight tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter names or formats that the description needs to disambiguate. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ("Check") plus a concrete resource scope (Cotlet.dev account, credits, Buildertrend connection), so an agent can tell this is a readiness/preflight probe rather than a browser action. It is implicitly distinguished from the sibling click/close/open/read/type tools because none of those imply a status check, but the description never explicitly states that contrast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing "check that ... are ready" suggests a preflight step before other Buildertrend actions, but there is no explicit instruction on when to call it, when not to, or which sibling it substitutes for. An agent must infer the sequencing itself.

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

Deploy Server