Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Create Permission Template

create_permission_template

Create a Procore permission template to define permissions and user access levels for company or project tools. Returns the created template and its ID.

Instructions

Returns the created Permission Template along with its permitted actions. Pass the record's fields as top-level arguments — they are nested under "permission_template" in the request payload for you. company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted. Creates the permission template 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: company_id. Procore API: Core > Directory. Endpoint: POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/permission_templates

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Permission Template
nameNoJSON request body field — the name of the Permission Template
typeNoJSON request body field — 'company_tools', 'global' or 'project_specific'
categoryNoJSON request body field — the category of the Permission Template
company_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the company.
project_idNoJSON request body field — id of corresponding project if provider_type == Project
permissionsNoJSON request body field — permitted actions for active tools
provider_idNoJSON request body field — either the company_id or project_id based on provider_type
provider_typeNoJSON request body field — 'Project' or 'Company'
user_access_levelsNoJSON request body field — user access levels for active tools
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explicitly warns that calling it again creates another record (non-idempotent), explains the company_id default behavior, and enumerates common error scenarios with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This is valuable context not present in the 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 concise, front-loaded with the return value, and every sentence adds value. It covers creation behavior, parameter handling, defaults, errors, and endpoint in a compact five-sentence structure.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations detailing behavior, the description is exceptionally complete. It states what is returned, how to supply fields, default behavior, non-idempotency, error handling, and the exact API endpoint, fully covering an agent's invocation needs.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds useful extra semantics by explaining that record fields should be passed as top-level arguments and are nested under 'permission_template' in the payload, plus the default for company_id. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 permission template and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201). It specifies the verb 'creates' and the resource 'permission template', and includes the API endpoint. It also implies differentiation from listing/updating tools by emphasizing creation and non-idempotency.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to create a permission template), and explains how to pass fields (top-level arguments). It also notes that company_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., update or list permission templates) or state when not to use this tool.

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