Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_company_person

Modify personnel records in Procore by updating details like name, job title, employee status, and work classification for a specific company.

Instructions

Update company person. [Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/people/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesID of the company
idYesID of the person
viewNoSpecifies which view of the resource to return (which attributes should be present in the response). If a valid view is not provided, it will default to normal.
first_nameNoThe First Name of the Company Person
last_nameYesThe Last Name of the Company Person
is_employeeNoThe Employee status of the Company Person
employee_idNoThe Employee ID of the Company Person
activeNoThe active status of the Company Person
origin_idNoThe Origin ID of the Company User
job_titleNoThe Job Title of the Company Person
work_classification_idNoThe unique identifier for the work classification of the Company Person.
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The technical endpoint suggests a PATCH operation but doesn't explain its implications.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is technically concise but inefficiently structured. The first part 'Update company person' is redundant with the name, while the technical endpoint information could be more usefully presented. However, it's not verbose or unnecessarily long - just under-specified rather than overly wordy.

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?

For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating a company person' entails, what fields can be modified, what the response contains, or any prerequisites. The technical endpoint provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage information needed for proper tool invocation.

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 already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify usage patterns. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Update company person' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb and resource scope, failing to distinguish this tool from its many sibling update tools (e.g., update_a_person, update_project_person). The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/people/{id}' adds technical context but doesn't clarify the functional 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. With numerous sibling tools including 'update_a_person' and 'update_project_person', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected. The technical endpoint information doesn't provide usage context.

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