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 /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{list_id}/items/{item_id}/item_attachments' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether this overwrites existing attachments, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The multipart/form-data requirement is useful but buried in 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The HTTP method and endpoint path are included but don't overwhelm. However, the multipart/form-data requirement should ideally be in the description rather than buried in the schema for better front-loading.

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?

For a creation tool with 5 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid attachment, success/failure responses, error conditions, or how this tool fits into the broader checklist workflow. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without trial and error.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between list_id, item_id, project_id, and section_id, or provide examples of attachment payloads.

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 the tool creates a checklist item attachment, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'add_attachments_to_punch_item' or 'create_checklist_schedule_attachment' - it just restates the tool name with minimal 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions '[Project Management/Inspections]' as a domain hint but gives no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools that might handle similar attachments.

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