Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Create Commitment Change Order Batch

create_commitment_change_order_batch

Create a batch of commitment change orders in Procore to streamline change order management. Requires project and contract IDs.

Instructions

Create a new Commitment Change Order Batch. 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_order_batches

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.
descriptionNoJSON request body field — the description for this Commitments operation
due_dateNoJSON request body field — due date in YYYY-MM-DD format
executedNoJSON request body field — whether or not the Change Order Batch is executed
invoiced_dateNoJSON request body field — the invoiced date in YYYY-MM-DD format
numberNoJSON request body field — number of the Change Order Batch
paid_dateNoJSON request body field — the paid date in YYYY-MM-DD format
privateNoJSON request body field — whether or not the Change Order Batch is private
revised_substantial_completion_dateNoJSON request body field — revised substantial completion date
revisionNoJSON request body field — revision Number
schedule_impact_amountNoJSON request body field — schedule impact in days
signature_requiredNoJSON request body field — whether a signature will be required for this Change Order Batch
signed_change_order_received_dateNoJSON request body field — signed Change Order Batch Received Date
statusNoJSON request body field — the status for this Commitments operation
titleNoJSON request body field — title of the Change Order Batch
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.
change_order_idsNoJSON request body field — array of Change Order (PCO) IDs to link to this batch. This field is only supported for two-tier projects.
legacy_request_idsNoJSON request body field — array of Change Order Request IDs to link to this batch. This field is only supported for three-tier projects.
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 ...
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
form_idsNoJSON request body field — forms to attach to the response
image_idsNoJSON request body field — images to attach to the response
upload_idsNoJSON request body field — uploads to attach to the response
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description only adds that the tool creates and returns the object with HTTP 201, but does not disclose side effects, failure behaviors, or authorization requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 reasonably concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes API details (endpoint, category) which, while informative, are slightly beyond essential scope.

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?

Given the high complexity (28 parameters) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of optional fields, return object structure, or provide examples. The agent lacks sufficient context to use all parameters confidently.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description only highlights required parameters (project_id, contract_id) which are already in the schema, adding no extra semantic value.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it creates a new Commitment Change Order Batch and returns the created object on success. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like create_commitment_contract or create_commitment_change_order, which perform similar creation actions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description says 'Use this to create a new Commitments in Procore' and lists required parameters, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not conditions, and no mention of compatible siblings.

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