Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Bulk Create Document Revisions

bulk_create_document_revisions

Batch create document revisions from uploads in one request, with workflow conflict resolution support.

Instructions

Create document revisions from uploads with workflow conflict resolution support. Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many document revisions at once. company_id and project_id default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted. Processes every supplied record in one request and returns the resulting collection; individual entries can fail independently, so check each one. Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve. Required parameters: company_id, project_id, uploads. Procore API (v2.0): Project Management > Document Management. Endpoint: POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/document_management/document_revisions

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uploadsYesJSON request body field — array of uploads to submit, with optional termination parameters for conflict resolution
company_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the company
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project
file_lockedNoJSON request body field — whether files should be locked after submission
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that all records are processed in one request, that individual entries can fail independently, that failures return an error payload, and that common HTTP statuses are 401/403/404. This is valuable operational context not present in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-organized: purpose, usage preference, defaults, behavior, error handling, required params, and API reference. Every sentence delivers useful information without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description covers the key return concept (resulting collection) and partial-failure semantics. It lacks a detailed success-response structure, but the behavior and error information are sufficient for a bulk creation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by noting that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config when omitted and by listing required parameters. However, this is slightly ambiguous because the schema marks those IDs as required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action: 'Create document revisions from uploads with workflow conflict resolution support.' It also contrasts with repeated single-record calls, distinguishing this bulk tool from potential alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to prefer this tool over repeated single-record calls when handling many document revisions at once and explains that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values. This gives clear when-to-use and setup context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TylerIlunga/procore-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server