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' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether attachments are versioned, file size limits, supported file types, or response format. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned but without context about what that means operationally.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence followed by an endpoint path. While efficient, the endpoint path duplication adds minimal value for an AI agent. The core purpose is front-loaded appropriately, but could benefit from one more sentence about context.

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 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'equipment attachment' represents (file upload? link? metadata?), doesn't mention the response format or success indicators, and provides no error handling context. The endpoint path is technical detail that doesn't compensate for missing behavioral information.

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 context beyond the endpoint path shown, which implies company_id and equipment_id are required in the URL path. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Create equipment attachment') and resource ('Company'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_equipment_attachment_project_v2_0' or 'create_attachment_project' variants, which would require explicit comparison.

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. With multiple attachment-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'create_equipment_attachment_project_v2_0', 'create_attachment_project'), there's no indication of context differences like company vs project scope or equipment-specific attachments.

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