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 mentions 'List all attachments' and an API endpoint, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all attachments' entails (e.g., file types, sizes). The description adds minimal context beyond the tool name.

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 with no waste, but it could be more front-loaded with key details. The inclusion of the API endpoint is useful for context but not essential for the agent. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values are (e.g., list of attachment objects with fields like id, name, url), error conditions, or pagination details. For a list tool with pagination parameters, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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, page, and per_page. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive. 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 states 'List all attachments' which is a clear verb+resource, but it's vague about what attachments are being listed. It mentions '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and a specific API endpoint, but doesn't specify that these are time and material entry attachments for a project, which is only implied by the endpoint path. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, many of which also list attachments for other resources.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools for comparison. The agent must infer usage from the endpoint path alone.

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