Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Send Email

send_email_project

Send an email for a specification section revision to specified recipients. Provide the revision ID, project ID, and distribution IDs to transmit the message.

Instructions

Sends an email with an associated Specification Section Revision. The text of the email and recipients are specified in the request body. project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first. Dispatches the message and returns a confirmation; calling it again sends another copy. 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, id, distribution_ids. Procore API: Project Management > Specifications. Endpoint: POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/specification_section_revision_emails/{id}/send_email

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesURL path parameter — iD of the Specification Section Revision to email
bodyNoJSON request body field — body of email
subjectNoJSON request body field — subject of Email
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
distribution_idsYesJSON request body field — array of distribution identifiers
cc_distribution_idsNoJSON request body field — array of cc distribution identifiers
bcc_distribution_idsNoJSON request body field — bcc_distribution_ids
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly discloses non-idempotence ('calling it again sends another copy'), expected failure statuses (401, 403, 404), and the project_id default behavior. These go well beyond the annotations and provide valuable operational context. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core action and every sentence contributes value—covering request body, defaults, prerequisites, idempotence, error handling, and API reference. It is dense but not bloated.

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 7-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, request body, default behavior, prerequisite resolution, non-idempotence, error payload, and endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for project_id (defaults to procore_set_config value) and id (must identify an existing parent record, resolve with list tool), which is above the baseline.

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 'Sends an email with an associated Specification Section Revision,' which is a specific verb plus resource and distinguishes this tool from the many sibling email tools. The endpoint and Procore API reference further disambiguate it uniquely.

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?

It provides clear context: email a Specification Section Revision, resolve the parent id with a list tool first, and project_id defaults to config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative send-email tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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