Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Accident Log

update_accident_log
Idempotent

Update a single accident log in Procore by providing the project ID, log ID, and updated fields. Omitted fields keep current values; the updated log is returned on success.

Instructions

Update single Accident Log. #### See - Daily Log guide - for additional info on * Attachments. Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values. 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. Returns the modified accident log on success. 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, accident_log. Procore API: Project Management > Daily Log. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/accident_logs/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier of the Daily Log resource
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
attachmentsNoJSON request body field — accident Log Attachments. To upload attachments you must upload the entire payload as `multipart/form-data` content-type and specify each parameter as form-data together with `attachments[]` as files.
accident_logYesJSON request body field — the accident log for this Daily Log operation
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but description adds valuable behavioral context: partial update semantics, default project_id behavior, failure modes (401/403/404), and attachment multipart requirement. This goes well beyond 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?

Description is dense but well-structured: starts with core purpose, then prerequisites, behavioral rules, error handling, required params, API reference. No redundant fluff; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, description covers return value ('Returns the modified accident log on success'), error patterns, prerequisites, and attachment handling. Complete for a mutation tool with annotations present.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by explaining project_id defaults, id must reference existing record, and accident_log is the payload. It also mentions attachments require multipart/form-data, which is critical beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update single Accident Log' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_accident_log, list_accident_logs, show_accident_logs, delete_accident_log by specifying update semantics and endpoint PATCH.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Send only the fields you intend to change' and mentions resolving id with the matching list tool first. It provides alternative guidance: 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' and notes project_id default behavior via procore_set_config.

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