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 mentions 'POST' and implies a creation action, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites existing attachments, response format, or error conditions. The multipart/form-data note in the schema description is not echoed here. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary operational context.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological title followed by a category and API endpoint. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information efficiently. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it less helpful than a more informative single sentence would be.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, or success conditions. The multipart/form-data requirement is buried in the schema. For a tool that likely involves file uploads and project/schedule context, more guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 project_id, schedule_id, and attachment (including multipart/form-data requirement). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Checklist Schedule Attachment' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds the category '[Project Management/Inspections]' and API endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/schedules/{schedule_id}/attachments', which provides some context but does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., what type of attachment, for what purpose). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_attachments_to_punch_item' or 'create_attachment_project'.

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, constraints, or sibling tools. Given the many attachment-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'add_attachments_to_punch_item', 'create_attachment_project'), the absence of any differentiation is a significant gap.

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