Buildertrend MCP Server

buildertrend_type

Type text into a numbered field on the current Buildertrend page, enabling AI agents to fill forms and enter data directly during automated workflows.

Instructions

Type text into a numbered field on the current Buildertrend page.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "buildertrend_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Text to type.
`element`	Yes	Field number from the last read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses only that the action applies to the current page. It does not say whether existing text is replaced or appended, whether typing submits/triggers the form, whether it requires focus or navigation first, or what a failure looks like – all material for a UI 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is arguably under-specified for a UI action tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

A simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage needs less prose, so this is close to adequate. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of any statement about replacement behavior, submission side effects, or failure modes leaves a real gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including that element is a field number from the last read. The description's "numbered field" wording echoes rather than extends that, and adds no format or range guidance beyond the 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?

Specific verb plus resource: "Type text into a numbered field on the current Buildertrend page." That distinguishes it from buildertrend_click (clicking) and buildertrend_read (reading) well enough, though it never names a sibling or states what 'typed' means in terms of committing the value.

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 through "numbered field" and "the current page" – the agent must infer that a prior buildertrend_read is required to obtain field numbers and that the target page must already be open. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of alternatives, and no precondition statement.

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

Deploy Server