Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_a_person

Modify personnel details in Procore's workforce planning system, including contact information, assignment status, permissions, and employment data for resource management.

Instructions

Update a Person. [Resource Management/Resource Planning] POST /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/people/{person_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesUnique identifier for the company. This parameter accepts both formats: - **Recommended**: Procore company ID (integer) - Use this for new integrations - Legacy: LaborChart UUID format (uuid string...
person_idYesUnique identifier for the person
first_nameNoFirst Name of the Person.
last_nameNoLast Name of the Person.
is_assignableNoDetermines if the Person can be assigned to tasks.
statusNoThe status of the Person. `active` means the person is visible in all pages, while `inactive` hides the person unless filtered. Inactive People do not count against billing plans.
group_idsNoArray of UUIDs representing the Groups this Person belongs to. **Cannot be empty** for an assignable resource or a non-admin Person.
emailNoThe email that the Person will log in with. **Required if updating `is_user` to `true`**. Must be unique across the company.
permission_level_idNoUUID of the Permission Level assigned to the Person. **Required when setting `is_user: true`**.
notification_profile_idNoUUID of the Notification Profile for the user.
phoneNoThe Person's phone number, including country and area code. Must be **unique** among all registered People.
can_receive_smsNoDetermines if the Person can receive SMS notifications.
can_receive_emailNoDetermines if the Person can receive email notifications.
can_receive_mobileNoDetermines if the Person can receive mobile push notifications if they have the app installed.
address_1NoFirst part of the Person's address.
address_2NoSecond part of the Person's address (e.g., Apartment, Suite, Unit).
city_townNoThe city or town where the Person is located.
state_provinceNoThe state or province where the Person is located.
zipcodeNoThe postal/zip code of the Person.
countryNoThe country where the Person is located.
job_title_idNoUUID reference to a Job Title in the LaborChart System.
hourly_wageNoHourly wage rate for the Person. Used for automatic spend tracking.
employee_numberNoInternal employee identifier.
emergency_contact_nameNoName of the Person's emergency contact.
emergency_contact_numberNoPhone number of the emergency contact.
emergency_contact_emailNoEmail address of the emergency contact.
emergency_contact_relationNoThe relationship between the Person and their emergency contact.
dobNoDate of birth of the Person. Accepts ISO Date String, UTC Date String, or MS Numeric Epoch Time.
hired_dateNoDate the Person was hired. Accepts ISO Date String, UTC Date String, or MS Numeric Epoch Time.
is_maleNoSpecifies if the Person identifies as male.
languageNoLanguage preference. Currently only `english` is supported.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update a Person' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error handling. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned but without context on mutability or safety. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence with the essential action and resource, plus an API endpoint hint. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the endpoint detail could be considered extraneous for an agent. Overall, it is appropriately sized and efficient.

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 (31 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update behavior, return values, error conditions, or constraints (e.g., which fields are mandatory beyond required IDs). For a tool with many parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 31 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the tool name, implying general updates but not detailing semantics like partial vs. full updates or field interdependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a Person'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_a_person' by indicating modification rather than creation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'update_company_person'), which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing existing person/company IDs), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'update_company_person' or 'create_a_person'. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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