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 implies a write operation ('Create') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites existing attachments, rate limits, or error handling. The endpoint hint ('POST') suggests mutation, but no safety or side-effect details are included.

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 but under-specified, not concise. It includes an endpoint and category, but the core purpose is vague. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance, with the second part being technical details that don't aid understanding. It could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'maintenance log attachment' entails, the expected input formats (e.g., for 'documents'), or the result of the creation. For a mutation tool with complex inputs, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 documents all 6 parameters (e.g., 'company_id', 'documents'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions the endpoint path with placeholders, but this does not clarify parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 maintenance log attachment..' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It adds a category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and an endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment_maintenance_logs/{id}/attachments', but does not specify what the tool does beyond the name. It lacks a clear verb-resource distinction and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_attachments_to_punch_item'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'add_attachments_to_punch_item' suggest similar functionality, but no comparison or usage context is given.

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