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 states 'Create Attachment' and a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The multipart/form-data note in the schema isn't echoed in the description, missing key implementation details.

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 and a REST endpoint. It's front-loaded with the action, but the endpoint details could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. However, it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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, no output schema, and a mutation tool (create), the description is inadequate. It lacks information on permissions, error handling, response format, or side effects. The endpoint path provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output details needed for safe invocation.

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 parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path hinting at hierarchy (project_id, action_id). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's vague about what exactly is being attached (to an incident action in a project). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'add_attachments_to_punch_item' or 'create_attachment_project' (different versions), leaving ambiguity about scope and context.

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 includes '[Project Management/Incidents]' and a REST endpoint path, which implies context but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools are mentioned, leaving usage unclear.

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