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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and hints at multipart/form-data requirements in the schema description, but the main description doesn't explicitly state that this is a mutating operation, what permissions are needed, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by a category tag and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint (POST /rest/v1.0/...) is somewhat technical and may not add value for an AI agent focused on semantic understanding.

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 that this is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. The agent lacks critical context to understand the full behavior and outcome of invoking this tool.

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 already documents all three parameters (id, project_id, attachments) with good detail, including the multipart/form-data requirement for attachments. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the action ('Add Attachments to Punch Item') and resource ('Punch Item'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'add_attachments_to_punch_item_v1_1', leaving ambiguity about when to use one versus the other. The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing punch item), exclusions, or compare it to the v1.1 sibling tool. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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