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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a list operation via GET, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., attachment metadata). The description lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with filtering and pagination.

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 parts: the tautological name restatement and endpoint details. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it wastes space on repetition without adding value. The structure is simple but lacks front-loaded clarity, as the first part is redundant.

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 a tool with 5 parameters including filtering and pagination, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the resource (attachments associated with submittals), output format, or behavioral traits like pagination limits. The endpoint hint helps but is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full context and 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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as unique identifier, 'filters__id' for IDs, 'view' with enum 'ids_only', pagination parameters). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'filters__id' relates to submittals or the purpose of 'ids_only'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 'List Submittal Associated Attachments' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds the category '[Project Management/Submittals]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/submittal_associated_attachments', which provides some context but does not clearly specify the action (e.g., list attachments linked to submittals) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_all_submittal_attachments_with_download_urls_v1_1'. The purpose is vague beyond the literal name.

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, constraints, or sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage context. For example, it does not clarify if this is for filtering attachments by submittal ID or if other tools handle broader attachment listings.

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