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 mentions 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with pagination parameters.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes an HTTP endpoint which, while not strictly necessary, is concise. No extraneous information is present, making it efficient.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and involves pagination (page/per_page), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions, which are critical for a list operation with pagination parameters.

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 all parameters (project_id, schedule_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline for high 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 states the action ('List') and resource ('Checklist Schedule Attachments'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, as there are many list tools in the sibling list (e.g., list_checklist_inspections_item_attachments, list_all_attachments), leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and an HTTP endpoint, but these do not offer explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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