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. It states 'Create Attachment' and a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., if the project or incident doesn't exist). The multipart/form-data requirement is hinted in the schema but not in the description. This is a significant gap 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: 'Create Attachment. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/{incident_id}/attachments'. It is front-loaded with the action and context, and the endpoint adds technical detail without verbosity. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating the resource relationship.

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 of a create operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on required permissions, error handling, response format, and how the attachment integrates with the system. The endpoint path provides some context, but for a mutation tool, more behavioral and operational details are needed.

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 fully documents the four parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the purpose of 'run_configurable_validations' or the attachment upload process. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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' states the verb and resource, but it is vague about what is being attached and to what. It includes context '[Project Management/Incidents]' and a POST endpoint, which adds some specificity, but does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'add_attachments_to_punch_item' or 'create_attachment_project' (without version). It's not tautological but lacks full 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 mentions the endpoint path, which implies it's for projects and incidents, but there is no explicit when/when-not usage, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools (e.g., other attachment-related tools in the list). This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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