Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Create Bid

create_bid

Create a bid in a bid package by providing project, bid package, and vendor IDs. Set bid details such as amount, comments, and submission status.

Instructions

Create a Bid within a Bid Package. To submit a bid in Bid Management 2.0, a bid form must exist since the bid will be submitted against the bid form. Pass the record's fields as top-level arguments — they are nested under "bid" in the request payload for you. project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and bid_package_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first. Creates the bid and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201); calling it again creates another record. 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: project_id, bid_package_id, vendor_id. Procore API: Preconstruction > Bid Management. Endpoint: POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/bid_packages/{bid_package_id}/bids

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
submittedNoJSON request body field — vendor submitted Bid
vendor_idYesJSON request body field — vendor responsible for bid
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
recipient_idsNoJSON request body field — array of Login IDs to add as recipients
bid_package_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier of the bid package
bidder_commentsNoJSON request body field — comments
lump_sum_amountNoJSON request body field — lump sum (overall) amount
is_bidder_committedNoJSON request body field — bidder committed
Behavior4/5

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

Descriptions adds behavioral context beyond annotations: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), success response (HTTP 201 with new id), and common failure statuses (401/403/404). This complements the idempotentHint=false annotation without contradicting it.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is fairly long but every sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, payload handling, defaults, resolution guidance, response/error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action and progressively adds necessary detail.

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?

For a create tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description covers prerequisites, parameter behavior, response format (new id, HTTP 201), and error scenarios. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention any additional response fields.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'bid' in the actual payload, project_id has a default, and bid_package_id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a Bid within a Bid Package.' It uses a specific verb and resource and contextualizes it with 'Bid Management 2.0' and the bid form prerequisite. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_a_bid_from_a_bid_package and list_bids_within_a_bid_package.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context: a bid form must exist before submitting, and bid_package_id must be resolved using 'the matching list tool first.' It also notes project_id defaults from procore_set_config. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool vs. alternatives, but the prerequisites and resolution steps are solid guidance.

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