Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Restoring An Equipment

restoring_an_equipment

Restore a previously deleted equipment record in a Procore project to make it active again. Use to update Field Productivity records.

Instructions

Restoring an equipment associated with the specified project. Use this to update an existing Field Productivity records (only the supplied fields are changed). Updates the specified Field Productivity records and returns the modified object on success. Required parameters: project_id, id. Procore API: Project Management > Field Productivity. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/managed_equipment/{id}/restore

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier of the Field Productivity resource
current_project_idNoJSON request body field — iD of the project the equipment is currently dispatched to
nameNoJSON request body field — name of the equipment
serial_numberNoJSON request body field — serial number of the equipment
identification_numberNoJSON request body field — identification number of the equipment
descriptionNoJSON request body field — description of the equipment
managed_equipment_make_idNoJSON request body field — iD of the equipment make
managed_equipment_model_idNoJSON request body field — iD of the equipment model
managed_equipment_type_idNoJSON request body field — iD of the equipment type
managed_equipment_category_idNoJSON request body field — iD of the equipment category
company_visibleNoJSON request body field — the company visible for this Field Productivity operation
yearNoJSON request body field — year the equipment was manufactured in
statusNoJSON request body field — the status for this Field Productivity operation
ownershipNoJSON request body field — the type of ownership
upload_uuidsNoJSON request body field — array of upload uuids
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns the modified object on success, which is standard. It doesn't explain what 'restoring' entails behaviorally (e.g., if it changes status or any side effects), but annotations already cover safety profile.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is two sentences plus metadata. It is concise but redundant: first sentence says 'Restoring an equipment', second says 'update an existing Field Productivity records'. Could be more structured and clearer without redundancy.

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?

With 16 parameters, no output schema, and complexity around 'restore', the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of restoration, difference from other equipment updates, or what the return object contains. More context is needed for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 16 parameters. The description only mentions required parameters (project_id, id) and says 'only the supplied fields are changed', which is already implied by the schema's lack of required body fields. No additional meaning added beyond schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states it restores an equipment and updates Field Productivity records, but the term 'restore' is ambiguous. It could imply undoing a deletion, but the description says it 'updates' and 'only the supplied fields are changed', which is more like a partial update. The name and title suggest restore, creating confusion with other update tools.

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 does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives. It says 'Use this to update an existing Field Productivity records' but there are many update tools for equipment. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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