Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Create Commitment Change Order

create_commitment_change_order

Creates a new Commitment Change Order in Procore using project and contract IDs. Supports 1 and 2 tier change order configurations.

Instructions

Create a new Commitment Change Order. This endpoint currently only supports projects using 1 and 2 tier change order configurations. Use this to create a new Commitments in Procore. Creates a new Commitments and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201). Required parameters: project_id, contract_id. Procore API: Construction Financials > Commitments. Endpoint: POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/commitment_change_orders

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
run_configurable_validationsNoQuery string parameter — if true, validations are run for the corresponding Configurable Field Set.
contract_idYesJSON request body field — unique identifier for the contract.
batch_idNoJSON request body field — unique identifier for a change order batch.
change_order_change_reason_idNoJSON request body field — unique identifier for the change reason.
location_idNoJSON request body field — unique identifier for the location.
designated_reviewer_idNoJSON request body field — unique identifier for the designated reviewer. This field is only supported for single-tier projects. Behavior is undefined in multi-tier projects.
received_from_idNoJSON request body field — unique identifier for the received from entity.
descriptionNoJSON request body field — the description for this Commitments operation
due_dateNoJSON request body field — due date in YYYY-MM-DD format
paid_dateNoJSON request body field — the paid date in YYYY-MM-DD format
invoiced_dateNoJSON request body field — the invoiced date in YYYY-MM-DD format
titleNoJSON request body field — title of the Contract
statusNoJSON request body field — the status for this Commitments operation
referenceNoJSON request body field — the reference for this Commitments operation
numberNoJSON request body field — number of the Change Order
revisionNoJSON request body field — revision Number
field_changeNoJSON request body field — the field change for this Commitments operation
signature_requiredNoJSON request body field — whether a signature will be required for this Change Order
signed_change_order_received_dateNoJSON request body field — signed Change Order Received Date
schedule_impact_amountNoJSON request body field — schedule impact in days
executedNoJSON request body field — whether or not the Change Order is executed
privateNoJSON request body field — whether or not the Commitment Change Order is private
paidNoJSON request body field — whether or not the Commitment Change Order is paid
reasonNoJSON request body field — reason for the change order
custom_field_%{custom_field_definition_id}NoJSON request body field — value of the custom field. The data type of the value passed in corresponds with the data_type of the Custom Field Definition. For a lov_entry data_type the value passed in should be the ID of one ...
enable_ssovNoJSON request body field — whether to enable SSOV on this Change Order. Only applicable to Commitment Change Orders.
change_event_attachment_idsNoJSON request body field — list of attachment IDs to attach. These must presently be associated with Change Events.
attachment_idsNoJSON request body field — existing attachments to preserve on the response
drawing_revision_idsNoJSON request body field — drawing Revisions to attach to the response
file_version_idsNoJSON request body field — file Versions to attach to the response
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive explicitly, nor idempotent. The description confirms it creates and returns the created object on success, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, side effects, or data validation beyond the mentioned configurable validations. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is fairly concise at 4 sentences but includes a minor typo ('Creates a new Commitments') and redundant endpoint info. While front-loaded with the creation action, it could be more succinct.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 31 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return structure, common use cases, or constraints like designated_reviewer_id only for single-tier (though the schema does). The tool's complexity warrants more contextual guidance.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description only highlights required parameters (project_id, contract_id) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for low coverage.

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 creates a new Commitment Change Order, lists required parameters, and notes supported configurations. It distinguishes itself as a creation endpoint with specific constraints.

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?

The description indicates when to use the tool (create commitment change orders) and the constraint that it only supports 1 and 2 tier configurations. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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