Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'POST' and 'multipart/form-data' in the schema, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the action and context, and another providing the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the purpose, but could be more structured by separating usage notes from technical details. There's no wasted text, but it's slightly terse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values. The context '[Project Management/Incidents]' is minimal, and it doesn't explain the relationship to sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format details for 'attachment' or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 'Create Attachment' which is a clear verb+resource, but it's vague about what exactly is being attached (a file to a witness statement). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'add_attachments_to_punch_item' or 'create_attachment_project_v1_0' variants, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 minimal context with '[Project Management/Incidents]' and the API path, implying it's for attaching files to witness statements in incidents. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other attachment tools in the sibling list, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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