Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Add Attachments To Punch Item

add_attachments_to_punch_item

Upload attachments to a Procore punch item by providing the punch item ID and project ID. Send files as multipart/form-data to create a new attachment record.

Instructions

Add Attachments to Punch Item #### Uploading images To upload images you must upload the entire payload as multipart/form-data content-type and specify each parameter as form-data together with attachments[] as files. Creates the attachment and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201); calling it again creates another record. Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve. Required parameters: id, project_id. Procore API (v1.1): Project Management > Punch List. Endpoint: POST /rest/v1.1/punch_items/add_punch_item_attachments

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesQuery string parameter — iD of the Punch Item
project_idYesQuery string parameter — unique identifier for the Procore project
attachmentsNoJSON request body field — punch Item Assignment attachments. To upload attachments you must upload the entire payload as `multipart/form-data` content-type and specify each parameter as form-data together with `attachments[...
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), the description adds valuable behavior: calling again creates another record (duplicate), returns HTTP 201, error payloads with common 401/403/404 causes, and the mandatory multipart/form-data encoding. This significantly enriches what annotations alone convey.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then provides necessary technical details (multipart, result, errors, required params, endpoint). The '#### Uploading images' heading is slightly awkward and could confuse since the tool is about attachments generally, not just images. Overall it's efficient but has minor waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return (new id) and error behavior, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It could be more complete by describing the full response object shape or clarifying the exact location of id/project_id (query vs form-data), but given the available context it's reasonably complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description introduces a contradiction: it says 'specify each parameter as form-data' while the schema labels id and project_id as 'Query string parameter'. This ambiguity could easily mislead an agent. The attachments[] array's structure is only vaguely described as files, and the schema items are empty objects. The description adds some value but is undermined by this conflict.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Add Attachments to Punch Item') and clearly states it creates an attachment and returns a new id. The resource is unambiguously a punch item, distinguishing it from many sibling attachment tools.

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 context is implied via the endpoint and 'Project Management > Punch List' reference, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative attachment tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It's clear enough for an agent to infer, but lacks explicit direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TylerIlunga/procore-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server