Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Coordination Issue Workflow Issue

update_coordination_issue_workflow_issue

Update a coordination issue's workflow metadata fields such as title, description, status, assignee, and due date. Accessible to project admins, creators, assignees, or workflow members.

Instructions

Updates a specific Coordination Issue that has associated workflow metadata. Access is controlled by the same visibility rules as other workflow issue endpoints: - Project Admins can update all workflow issues - Issue creators can update issues they created - Issue assignees can update issues assigned to them - Workflow members can update issues for workflows they are part of. Use this to update an existing Coordination Issues (only the supplied fields are changed). Updates the specified Coordination Issues and returns the modified object on success. Required parameters: company_id, project_id, id. Procore API (v2.0): Project Management > Coordination Issues. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/coordination_issues/workflow_issues/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the company.
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
idYesURL path parameter — coordination Issue ID
titleNoJSON request body field — title of the Coordination Issue (max 80 characters)
descriptionNoJSON request body field — description of the Coordination Issue
statusNoJSON request body field — status of the Coordination Issue. Must be open, ready_for_review or closed. Only issue assignee can set ready_for_review.
location_idNoJSON request body field — location where the issue is present. The location must be in the same project as the project_id
assignee_idNoJSON request body field — iD of Procore user that should be assigned the issue
due_dateNoJSON request body field — due date of the Coordination Issue
issue_typeNoJSON request body field — issue Type of the Coordination Issue
priorityNoJSON request body field — priority of the Coordination Issue
trade_idNoJSON request body field — trade associated with the Coordination Issue
originNoJSON request body field — delete origin association. Only 'null' value accepted
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read/write and non-destructive nature. Description adds key context: access rules (project admins, creators, assignees, workflow members), partial update semantics ('only supplied fields are changed'), and return value. Does not mention idempotency or side effects, but openWorldHint is clarified by the access rules.

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 somewhat lengthy (10 lines) but well-structured: purpose first, then access rules, then update behavior. It front-loads the key action. Could be trimmed slightly but remains clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 13 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, access, update semantics, and return value. It misses error scenarios or idempotency, but the annotation openWorldHint=true is partially explained by access rules. Sufficient for an AI to understand usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no significant parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only reiterates required parameters. The status constraint about assignee is already in the 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?

The description clearly states it updates a Coordination Issue with workflow metadata, distinguishing it from generic coordination issue updates. The verb 'Updates' and resource 'Coordination Issue Workflow Issue' are specific and non-ambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description lists access control roles but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., generic update_coordination_issue). It implies use for workflow-related issues but lacks 'when not to use' or alternative guidance.

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