Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

create_rfi

Create a Request for Information (RFI) in Procore projects to clarify construction details, assign responsibilities, and track impacts on schedule and cost.

Instructions

Create RFI. [Project Management/RFI] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
run_configurable_validationsNoIf true, validations are run for the corresponding Configurable Field Set.
subjectYesThe Subject of the RFI
referenceNoThe Reference of the RFI
assignee_idNoThe ID of the Assignee User. *Only admin users can set this field DEPRECATED. Please use assignee_ids instead
assignee_idsNoAn 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_idsNoAn 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
draftNoThe Draft status of the RFI
due_dateNoThe Due Date of the RFI *Only admin users can set this field
received_from_login_information_idNoThe ID of the Received From User of the RFI
responsible_contractor_idNoThe ID of the Responsible Contractor Vendor of the RFI
distribution_idsNoAn array of IDs of the Distributions of the RFI
numberNoThe 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.
privateNoThe Private status of the RFI
project_stage_idNoThe 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_impactNoThe Schedule Impact of the RFI
cost_impactNoThe Cost Impact of the RFI
location_idNoThe ID of the Location of the RFI
drawing_numberNoThe Drawing Number of the RFI
specification_section_idNoThe ID of the Specification Section of the RFI
cost_code_idNoThe ID of the Cost Code of the RFI
rfi_manager_idYesThe 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
revisionNoRevision Number *This field is required only when creating a new revision of an RFI.
source_rfi_header_idNoThe ID of The Root RFI Revision *This field is required only when creating a new revision of an RFI.
questionYesThe Question of the RFI
custom_textfield_1NoThe Custom Textfield 1 of the RFI
custom_textfield_2NoThe Custom Textfield 2 of the RFI
custom_field_%{custom_field_definition_id}NoValue 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 ...
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It does not mention that this is a write operation (creating an RFI), potential side effects (e.g., notifications, workflow triggers), authentication requirements, or any constraints like rate limits. The description is minimal and offers no behavioral insights beyond the implied creation action.

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?

While the description is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence 'Create RFI. [Project Management/RFI] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis' wastes space on redundant information (the tool name and HTTP method) without adding value. It lacks front-loaded clarity and fails to earn its place with meaningful content.

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 of the tool (28 parameters, 4 required, nested objects) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address what the tool returns, error conditions, or the significance of creating an RFI in a project management context. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, the description should provide more contextual guidance but falls short.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 28 parameters are documented in the input schema with detailed descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'assignee_id' vs. 'assignee_ids') or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 RFI. [Project Management/RFI] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis' is tautological, as it essentially restates the tool name 'create_rfi' without adding meaningful context. It does not specify what an RFI is (e.g., Request for Information) or what the tool actually does beyond the verb 'Create', failing to distinguish it from sibling tools or provide a clear purpose.

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, such as other RFI-related tools (e.g., 'update_rfi', 'list_rfis', or 'create_rfi_reply' from the sibling list). It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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