Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create attachment' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., if the project_id is invalid). The HTTP method POST is mentioned, which hints at creation, but lacks details on response format or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a 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.

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

The description is concise with two parts: a brief purpose statement and technical context. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it is not optimally front-loaded; the key action 'Create attachment' is clear but could be more informative. The structure is efficient but under-specified.

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 the complexity (3 required parameters including a nested object) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., attachment ID, success status) or behavioral aspects like error conditions. For a creation tool with no structured output, this leaves the agent inadequately informed.

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 descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'time_and_material_entry_attachment' object or constraints. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description does not compensate with extra insights.

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 'Create attachment' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'create_attachment_project_v1_0' without adding meaningful context. It does not specify what kind of attachment is being created (e.g., file, document) or for what resource, and fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'add_attachments_to_punch_item' or 'create_attachment_project_v1_0_2'. The minimal additional context '[Project Management/Field Productivity] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/time_and_material_entry_attachments' hints at the domain but is insufficient for clarity.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project and time & material entry), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'add_attachments_to_punch_item' or other attachment-related tools. The agent is left without any usage context.

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