Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Create RFI

create_rfi

Creates a new RFI in a Procore project using subject, manager, and question. Returns the created RFI with its ID or an error status for invalid requests.

Instructions

Creates a new RFI in a specified Project. Pass the record's fields as top-level arguments — they are nested under "rfi" in the request payload for you. project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted. Creates the RFI 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: 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
draftNoJSON request body field — the Draft status 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
subjectYesJSON request body field — the Subject of the RFI
due_dateNoJSON request body field — the Due Date of the RFI *Only admin users can set this field
questionYesJSON request body field — the Question of the RFI
revisionNoJSON request body field — revision Number *This field is required only when creating a new revision of an RFI.
referenceNoJSON request body field — the Reference of the RFI
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
assignee_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Assignee User. *Only admin users can set this field DEPRECATED. Please use assignee_ids instead
cost_impactNoJSON request body field — the Cost Impact of the RFI
location_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Location of the RFI
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
cost_code_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Cost Code of the RFI
drawing_numberNoJSON request body field — the Drawing Number 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
schedule_impactNoJSON request body field — the Schedule Impact of the RFI
distribution_idsNoJSON request body field — an array of IDs of the Distributions 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...
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
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.
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
specification_section_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Specification Section of the RFI
responsible_contractor_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Responsible Contractor Vendor of the RFI
run_configurable_validationsNoQuery string parameter — if true, validations are run for the corresponding Configurable Field Set.
received_from_login_information_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Received From User 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 ...
Behavior5/5

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

The description richly discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: it explains that fields are nested under 'rfi' in the payload, project_id defaults to procore_set_config, the response returns the new id with HTTP 201, repeated calls create new records (consistent with idempotentHint=false), and failure modes include specific HTTP status codes. This adds significant context for the agent without contradicting any 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 efficiently structured: it starts with purpose, then explains payload handling, default behavior, response format, error scenarios, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a create operation with 28 parameters.

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?

For a complex tool with 28 parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, parameter nesting, defaults, response (new id with 201), error codes, and the exact endpoint. The full schema fills parameter details, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds crucial semantic details: parameters are passed as top-level arguments and are automatically nested under 'rfi', and project_id has a default from procore_set_config when omitted. It also lists the required parameters. This goes beyond the schema's per-field 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new RFI in a specified Project.' It further clarifies the exact API endpoint and distinguishes this from siblings like update_rfi or show_rfi by focusing on creation. The required parameters and project scope are also stated, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 makes clear the tool is for creating RFIs and lists required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context (creating a new RFI) is clear, but there are no exclusions. Since the sibling list includes many RFI-related tools, adding explicit alternatives would improve this dimension.

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