Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Company Tag

update_company_tag

Updates a company's Resource Planning Tag with new name, global accessibility, and group assignments.

Instructions

Updates a Resource Planning Tag for the given company. Use this to perform the update company action on Resource Planning records. Creates a new Resource Planning records and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201). Required parameters: company_id, tag_id, company_id, name, globally_accessible, group_ids. Procore API: Resource Management > Resource Planning. Endpoint: POST /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/tags/{tag_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesJSON request body field — unique identifier for the company. NOTE - this is a Laborchart company ID.
tag_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the tag.
nameYesJSON request body field — the Tag's name.
abbreviationNoJSON request body field — a 5-character max String representing the abbreviation that will appear in most Tag views. Defaults to the first 5 characters of the name if not provided.
categoriesNoJSON request body field — array of Tag Categories this Tag should be available to, if Tag Categories are enabled.
colorNoJSON request body field — hexadecimal color code for the Tag, used for categorization and visual distinction.
expr_days_warningNoJSON request body field — number of days before expiration when the Tag should be in "warning" mode. Only relevant if `require_expr_date` is true.
globally_accessibleYesJSON request body field — controls whether the Tag should be globally available to all current and future Groups.
group_idsYesJSON request body field — array of UUIDs for which Groups this Tag should be available to or be removed from depending on context. For adding availability, if `globally_accessible` is true, this can be an empty array.
require_expr_dateNoJSON request body field — controls whether the Tag should require an expiration date when applied to a Person.
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims both update and create behavior, which is contradictory. It states HTTP 201 (created) on success, suggesting the tool creates a new record despite the 'update' name. Annotations do not clarify this; the description adds confusion rather than transparency.

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 relatively short but contains a major inconsistency (update vs. create) and a duplicate parameter. It is not effectively concise as it wastes words on conflicting information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clearly explain return values. It mentions 'returns the created object' but this conflicts with the update purpose. It does not cover error cases, side effects, or distinguish from sibling tools like create_company_tag or delete_a_resource_planning_tag.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters. The description merely lists required parameters (with duplication of company_id) and adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The duplicate parameter name is an error that could confuse the agent.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description begins by stating it 'Updates a Resource Planning Tag' but then contradicts this by saying 'Creates a new Resource Planning records' and uses a POST endpoint. The tool name and title are 'update_company_tag', so the description is misleading about its core purpose.

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 says 'Use this to perform the update company action on Resource Planning records' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete, or other tag tools). No exclusions or context for appropriate usage are given.

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