Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_bid_package

Modify bid package details like due dates, messages, and requirements to manage construction project bidding processes.

Instructions

Update Bid Package. [Preconstruction/Bid Management] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/bid_packages/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
idYesID
accept_post_due_submissionsNoAccepts bid post due submissions
bid_due_dateYesDue date
bid_email_messageYesBid package email information details
bid_web_messageYesBid package bidding instructions
titleYesBid package title
accounting_methodNoBid package accounting method, either 'amount' or 'unit'
bid_submission_confirmationNoBid Package submission confirmation text
anticipated_award_dateNoAnticipated award date
numberNoBid package number
distribution_idsNoArray of User IDs who will be on the bid package's distribution list
blind_biddingNoBlind bidding enabled
pre_bid_walk_through_dateNoScheduled pre-bid walkthrough date
pre_bid_walk_through_notesNoPre-bid walkthrough notes
enable_prebid_walkthroughNoPre-bid walkthrough enabled
manager_idNoLogin Information ID for Manager
require_ndaNoRequire Non-Disclosure Agreement
display_project_nameNoDisplay project name
prostore_file_idsNoArray of Procore File IDs for Non-Disclosure Agreement
enable_public_discoveryNoWhether the bid package is discoverable by the public
pre_bid_meeting_locationNoLocation for the pre-bid meeting
pre_bid_meeting_dateNoDate and time for the pre-bid meeting in UTC (ISO 8601 format)
pre_bid_meeting_online_linkNoOnline meeting link for the pre-bid meeting
pre_bid_meeting_notesNoNotes for the pre-bid meeting
public_project_funding_sourceNoSource of funding for the public project, either 'private' or 'public'
show_location_for_nda_projectsNoWhether the location for the NDA project is shown
public_bid_opening_details_dateNoDate and time for the public bid opening in UTC (ISO 8601 format)
public_bid_opening_details_locationNoLocation for the public bid opening
public_bid_opening_details_online_linkNoOnline link for the public bid opening
trades_and_servicesNoArray of trades and services
business_classificationsNoArray of business classifications
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Update' and a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects (e.g., notifications sent), or error handling. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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 concise with two parts: a brief statement and endpoint details. It's front-loaded with the action, but could be more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though slightly sparse for a complex tool.

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 (32 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, return values, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with many parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 32 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('Bid Package'), but it's vague about what 'Update' entails—whether it's partial or full updates, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bid_package' or other update tools. The inclusion of '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and the PATCH endpoint adds some context, but the purpose remains generic.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_bid_package' or other update tools in the sibling list. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing bid package ID, or when not to use it (e.g., for creating new packages).

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