Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_custom_field

Modify custom field configurations in Procore workforce planning to control availability, filtering, and values across projects and people.

Instructions

Update Custom Field. [Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools] POST /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/custom-fields/{field_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesUnique identifier for the company. This parameter accepts both formats: - **Recommended**: Procore company ID (integer) - Use this for new integrations - Legacy: LaborChart UUID format (uuid string...
field_idYesUUID of the Custom Field.
nameNoThe updated name of the Custom Field.
can_filterNoIf true, allows this field to be used as a filter.
integration_onlyNoIf true, only integrations can update this field.
on_projectsNoIf true, the field is available on Projects.
on_peopleNoIf true, the field is available on People.
descriptionNoA description to help Admin users understand the field’s purpose.
valuesNoOnly applicable for `select` or `multi-select` fields. Replaces the entire list of values.
sort_byNoControls sorting of dropdown values. `alpha` sorts alphabetically, while `listed` maintains the provided order.
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. It states 'Update Custom Field,' which implies a mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions (hinted at by 'Company Admin' but not explained), whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, side effects, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 very concise—just one sentence plus a technical path. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update Custom Field') and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the technical path detail, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an agent's decision-making, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the scope of updates, permissions needed, or what the tool returns. The schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to address behavioral aspects, prerequisites, or output expectations, leaving the agent with significant gaps for safe and correct 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with detailed parameter documentation (e.g., 'company_id' accepts multiple formats, 'values' replaces entire lists for select fields). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even summarizing key fields. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not compensate or enhance understanding of parameter interactions.

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 'Update Custom Field' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Custom Field'), which is a specific action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add_values_to_custom_field' or 'remove_values_from_custom_field', nor does it clarify what aspects of a custom field are updated (e.g., metadata, values, settings). The inclusion of '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools] POST /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/custom-fields/{field_id}' adds technical context but does not enhance the functional purpose clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'add_values_to_custom_field' or 'remove_values_from_custom_field' for specific operations. The technical path hint ('Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools') implies a restricted context but is not explicit usage 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