Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_checklist_inspection

Modify inspection checklist details in Procore projects to update status, dates, contacts, and specifications for quality control.

Instructions

Update Checklist (Inspection). [Project Management/Inspections] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/lists/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesChecklist ID
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
run_configurable_validationsNoIf true, validations are run for the corresponding Configurable Field Set.
nameNoThe Name of the Inspection
descriptionNoDescription of the Inspection
due_atNoTimestamp indicating when the Inspection is due.
inspection_dateNoDate of the Inspection
inspection_type_idNoThe ID of the Inspection's Type
numberNoThe Number of the Checklist. If no number is passed in, the next available number will be used.
point_of_contact_idNoThe ID of the Inspection's Point of Contact
inspector_idsNoThe IDs of the Inspectors performing the Inspection
privateNoIndicates whether this Inspection is private
responsible_contractor_idNoThe ID of the Inspection's Responsible Contractor
spec_section_idNoThe ID of the Inspection's Specification Section
statusNoThe Inspection's status
trade_idNoThe ID of the Trade involved in the Inspection
distribution_member_idsNoThe IDs of the Distribution Members for the Inspection
location_idNoThe ID of the Location of the Inspection
custom_field_%{custom_field_definition_id}NoValue of the custom field. The data type of the value passed in corresponds with the data_type of the Custom Field Definition. For a lov_entry data_type the value passed in should be the ID of one ...
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate that this is a mutation operation (PATCH implies update), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. The description is purely technical without behavioral context.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single run-on sentence combining tool name, category, and API path without clear structure. It's under-specified rather than concise—it wastes space on technical details (API path) that don't help the agent, while missing useful guidance. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one doesn't.

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 (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, required permissions, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with many parameters, the description should provide more context to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 19 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Checklist (Inspection)') and resource ('Checklist'), but it's vague about what specifically is updated. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_checklist_inspection_v1_1' or other update tools. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Inspections]' and the API path adds context but doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or refer to sibling tools like 'update_checklist_inspection_v1_1' or 'update_checklist'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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