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 states 'Update' implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, side effects (e.g., versioning), or error conditions. The API path suggests a PATCH operation, but this is not explained in the description.

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 the API endpoint, which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the core action ('Update equipment attachment') but wastes space on redundant path details that don't aid understanding. It could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what fields can be updated, the response format, error handling, or any constraints. The API path hints at context but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output details.

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 all parameters (equipment_id, attachment_id, company_id) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, relationships). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 'Update equipment attachment (Company). [Core/Equipment] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register/{equipment_id}/attachment/{attachment_id}' restates the tool name ('update_equipment_attachment') and adds an API endpoint path, but does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying metadata, replacing file, changing status). It distinguishes from siblings by including '(Company)' scope, but the purpose remains vague beyond the basic verb+resource.

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 (e.g., existing attachment), exclusions, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_equipment_attachment_company_v2_0', 'delete_equipment_attachment_company_v2_0', 'update_equipment_attachment_project_v2_0'), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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