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' (implying a write/mutation) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate attempts, or the response format. The description lacks critical context 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 a single sentence that includes the action and API endpoint, which is efficient. However, it could be more front-loaded with user-facing intent rather than technical details like the URL path. It avoids waste but lacks structural clarity for an AI agent.

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 (a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what an 'equipment attachment' entails, the expected outcome, error conditions, or any side effects. For a creation tool in a resource hierarchy, more context is 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 already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how resource_id links to maintenance records) or providing examples. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the resource ('Project'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_equipment_attachment_company_v2_0', which appears to serve a similar purpose but at the company level, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 (e.g., needing existing equipment, project, or company), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'create_equipment_attachment_company_v2_0' for context on scope differences. Usage is implied only by the URL path.

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