Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Delivery Log

update_delivery_log
Idempotent

Update an existing delivery log in a Procore project, modifying only the fields you specify while preserving others. Returns the updated log or an error with HTTP status.

Instructions

Update single Delivery Log in the specfied Project. Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values. project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first. Returns the modified delivery log on success. Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve. Required parameters: project_id, id, delivery_log. Procore API: Project Management > Daily Log. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/delivery_logs/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier of the Daily Log resource
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
attachmentsNoJSON request body field — attachments are not viewable or used on web. To upload attachments you must upload the entire payload as `multipart/form-data` content-type and specify each parameter as form-data together with `at...
delivery_logYesJSON request body field — the delivery log for this Daily Log operation
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context: omitted fields retain current values, return value is the modified log, and common HTTP error statuses (401/403/404) are disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences cover purpose, update behavior, prerequisites, and error/return handling. Minor typo 'specfied' and the aggregated error list add slight bulk, but no redundant content.

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?

Without an output schema, the description still explains return value and error cases. It addresses configuration defaults, id resolution, and partial updates, making it adequate for a 4-param tool with nested objects. Some details like multipart/form-data for attachments are left to the schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description provides extra behavioral semantics: project_id falls back to config default, id must refer to an existing record resolved via list tool, and delivery_log is the update payload. These details go beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Update single Delivery Log in the specified Project,' providing a clear verb, resource, and scope. It further specifies the PATCH endpoint, differentiating it from list/create/show/delete siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first and explains that project_id defaults from procore_set_config when omitted. Partial-update semantics are stated, but it does not explicitly name alternatives for create/delete cases.

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