Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Adds Attachments To A Transfer.

adds_attachments_to_a_transfer

Attach a file to a material transfer record in Procore. Provide the transfer ID, company, and project to create the attachment and return its ID.

Instructions

Either provide a file_id already obtained from the File Access Service (FAS), or omit it to have FAS create a new file record. The response includes the file_id and, when FAS creates the record, an upload URL the client uses to upload the file content. company_id and project_id default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first. 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, company_id, project_id. Procore API (v2.0): Resource Management > Materials Management. Endpoint: POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/materials_mgmt/transfers/{id}/attachments

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesURL path parameter — the Id of the transfer
company_idYesURL path parameter — the company identifier
project_idYesURL path parameter — the project identifier
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining FAS interaction, response contents (file_id and upload URL), non-idempotent behavior (calling again creates another record), defaulting behavior, and common HTTP error statuses. This provides rich behavioral context with no contradiction to annotations.

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 detailed and logically structured, covering input, behavior, errors, and endpoint. It is somewhat verbose and includes a redundant 'Required parameters' line that duplicates the schema, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (file_id, upload URL, new id), error cases (401/403/404), prerequisites (resolve id first), and defaulting. It provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal labels. The description adds meaningful semantics: defaulting of company_id/project_id, the prerequisite that id must reference an existing record, and the concept of file_id. However, file_id is not present in the input schema, creating a slight inconsistency that reduces clarity.

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 clearly states the tool adds an attachment to a transfer, naming the specific resource and verb. It provides the API endpoint and detailed instructions on providing the file, distinguishing it from siblings like adds_attachments_to_a_shipment_resource.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear guidance on how to use the tool: either pass a file_id from FAS or omit it, explains defaulting of company_id/project_id from config, and instructs to resolve the parent id with a list tool first. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the resource-specific scoping makes the intended use unambiguous.

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