Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Create RFI

create_rfi

Creates a new RFI in a Procore project. Provide project ID, subject, RFI manager ID, and question to submit the request.

Instructions

Creates a new RFI in a specified Project. Use this to create a new RFI records in Procore. Creates a new RFI records and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201). Required parameters: project_id, subject, rfi_manager_id, question. Procore API: Project Management > RFI. Endpoint: POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis

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.
subjectYesJSON request body field — the Subject of the RFI
referenceNoJSON request body field — the Reference of the RFI
assignee_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Assignee User. *Only admin users can set this field DEPRECATED. Please use assignee_ids instead
assignee_idsNoJSON request body field — an array of IDs of the Assignees of the RFI *Only admin users can set this field **If this param is not provided, the assigned_id will be used instead
required_assignee_idsNoJSON request body field — an array of IDs of the Assignees that are required to respond to the RFI * Only admin users can set this field ** IDs must also be present in assignee_ids
draftNoJSON request body field — the Draft status of the RFI
due_dateNoJSON request body field — the Due Date of the RFI *Only admin users can set this field
received_from_login_information_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Received From User of the RFI
responsible_contractor_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Responsible Contractor Vendor of the RFI
distribution_idsNoJSON request body field — an array of IDs of the Distributions of the RFI
numberNoJSON request body field — the Number of the RFI *This field will be auto-populated if the RFI is not draft **When creating a new revision of an RFI, if not provided, it will inherit the number from the source RFI.
privateNoJSON request body field — the Private status of the RFI
project_stage_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Project Stage of the RFI *If Number By Stage is enabled in RFI settings, this will add the prefix of the project stage to the full number of the RFI. **This field is not needed when c...
schedule_impactNoJSON request body field — the Schedule Impact of the RFI
cost_impactNoJSON request body field — the Cost Impact of the RFI
location_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Location of the RFI
drawing_numberNoJSON request body field — the Drawing Number of the RFI
specification_section_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Specification Section of the RFI
cost_code_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Cost Code of the RFI
rfi_manager_idYesJSON request body field — the ID of the RFI Manager User of the RFI *Only admin users (or standard users, if the project's configuration allows for it) can set this field
revisionNoJSON request body field — revision Number *This field is required only when creating a new revision of an RFI.
source_rfi_header_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of The Root RFI Revision *This field is required only when creating a new revision of an RFI.
questionYesJSON request body field — the Question of the RFI
custom_textfield_1NoJSON request body field — the Custom Textfield 1 of the RFI
custom_textfield_2NoJSON request body field — the Custom Textfield 2 of the RFI
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 ...
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations have readOnlyHint: false, so the description's mention of creation is consistent. It adds that success returns HTTP 201 and the created object, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like permissions or side effects beyond creation.

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 concise at two sentences plus a list of required parameters and API info. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the additional details (API endpoint, method) could be structured more cleanly.

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 tool's complexity (28 parameters, 4 required, nested objects, no output schema), the description is sparse. It does not explain how to structure the request body for nested fields, when to use optional parameters, or describe the response structure beyond HTTP 201.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little beyond listing required parameters (project_id, subject, rfi_manager_id, question). The schema already fully describes each parameter, so the description provides minimal additional meaning.

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 it creates new RFI records in a specified Project. It lists the required parameters and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_rfi_reply by specifying it creates the RFI itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 RFI records' but provides no guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternative tools. It lacks explicit exclusions or context for selecting this tool over others.

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