Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

create_project_vendor_v1_1

Add a vendor to a Procore project by providing details like name, contact information, address, and business attributes for project management and procurement.

Instructions

Create project vendor. [Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/vendors

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
viewNoSpecifies which view of the resource to return (which attributes should be present in the response). The default view is normal.
run_configurable_validationsNoIf true, validations are run for the corresponding Configurable Field Set.
abbreviated_nameNoAbbreviated name
addressNoStreet address
authorized_bidderNoAuthorized bidder status
business_phoneNoBusiness phone number
cityNoCity
country_codeNoCountry code (ISO-3166 Alpha-2 format)
email_addressNoEmail address
fax_numberNoFax number
is_activeNoActive status
labor_unionNoLabor union
license_numberNoLicense number
mobile_phoneNoMobile phone number
nameYesName
non_union_prevailing_wageNoNon union prevailing wage status
notesNoNotes (notes/keywords/tags)
origin_idNoOrigin ID
origin_dataNoOrigin Data
origin_codeNoOrigin Code
parent_idNoParent Vendor ID. Cannot be the same as ID. Only two levels of hierarchy are supported (parent/child).
prequalifiedNoPrequalified status
primary_contact_idNoPrimary Contact ID
state_codeNoState code (ISO-3166 Alpha-2 format)
trade_nameNoVendor's Trade Name, also known as Doing Business As (DBA).
union_memberNoUnion member status
websiteNoWebsite url
zipNoZip code
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create project vendor' which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, or the response format. The HTTP method 'POST' in the description hints at creation, but lacks details on side effects or error handling.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is overly concise to the point of being under-specified. 'Create project vendor. [Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/vendors' includes redundant technical details (endpoint) that don't aid the agent, while missing essential functional context. It's not front-loaded with useful information, wasting space on API mechanics instead of user guidance.

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 complexity (29 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'project vendor' is, how it differs from other vendor types, what the creation entails, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with many parameters, this leaves the agent without necessary context to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 29 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between fields (e.g., 'parent_id' hierarchy) or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Create project vendor' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_company_vendor' or 'create_project_vendor_insurance'. The description fails to articulate what a 'project vendor' entails in this context.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools for creating various entities (e.g., 'create_company_vendor', 'create_project_vendor_insurance'), there is no indication of prerequisites, context, or distinctions. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool appropriately.

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