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 'Delete Attachment', indicating a destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related data). This leaves significant gaps 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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing the API path. It is front-loaded with the key action, though the API path detail might be more technical than necessary for an agent's understanding, but it does not waste space.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, consequences, error handling, or what happens post-deletion. Given the complexity of a delete operation in a project management context, more context is needed to guide safe 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, list_id, and id. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('Attachment'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_an_inspection_item_attachment' or 'delete_checklist_inspections_item_attachment', which might handle similar deletions in different contexts, so it lacks explicit 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 mentions the API path '[Project Management/Inspections] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/lists/{list_id}/attachments/{id}', which implies a specific context, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over other deletion tools or what prerequisites are needed.

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