Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Direct Cost Line Item

update_direct_cost_line_item
Idempotent

Update an existing direct cost line item in Procore with new values for fields like amount, quantity, or cost code. Send only the fields you want to change; omitted fields keep their current values.

Instructions

Update a Direct Cost Line Item. This action does not support concurrent requests. If there is an attempt to update a Direct Cost Line Item that belongs to a Direct Cost which is being updated or deleted by another request, a 409 Conflict error will be returned. Note: A budget line item will automatically be created for Non-budgeted line items for all new projects and for projects enabled with Non-Budgeted line item beta functionality. Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values. Pass the record's fields as top-level arguments — they are nested under "line_item" in the request payload for you. project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and direct_cost_id, id must identify existing parent records — resolve them with the matching list tool first. Returns the modified direct cost line item 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, direct_cost_id, id. Procore API: Construction Financials > Project Level Direct Costs. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/direct_costs/{direct_cost_id}/line_items/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesURL path parameter — direct Cost Line Item ID
uomNoJSON request body field — unit of measure of the described item
amountNoJSON request body field — the amount for this Project Level Direct Costs operation
quantityNoJSON request body field — quantity of described item
origin_idNoJSON request body field — unique identifier of the origin
unit_costNoJSON request body field — unit cost of described item
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
descriptionNoJSON request body field — the description for this Project Level Direct Costs operation
origin_dataNoJSON request body field — the origin data for this Project Level Direct Costs operation
tax_code_idNoJSON request body field — unique identifier of the tax code
wbs_code_idNoJSON request body field — unique identifier of the wbs code
cost_code_idNoJSON request body field — unique identifier of the cost code
extended_typeNoJSON request body field — calculated amount from quantity and unit cost or manually entered amount
direct_cost_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier of the direct cost
line_item_type_idNoJSON request body field — unique identifier of the line item type
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide the read-only/idempotent/destructive hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it warns about 409 Conflict on concurrent requests, discloses the side effect that a budget line item is automatically created for Non-budgeted line items, explains the patch-like behavior of omitting fields, details defaulting of project_id from config, and describes error payloads with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This significantly enhances the agent's understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Though longer than some descriptions, every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, concurrency behavior, side effects, patch semantics, payload mapping, defaults, resolution, return value, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. The description is front-loaded with the core action and maintains a logical flow. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, only 3 required) and no output schema, the description fully covers essential usage: required parameters, return value on success ('Returns the modified direct cost line item on success'), error behavior, concurrency, side effects, and how to resolve parent records. It also provides the Procore API path and endpoint, which aids in understanding the request. No critical operational details appear to be missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds extra value by clarifying how parameters are passed ('Pass the record's fields as top-level arguments — they are nested under "line_item" in the request payload for you.'), noting the default for project_id, and emphasizing that direct_cost_id and id must point to existing records. It also lists required parameters explicitly. This goes beyond the schema's per-field 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 clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Update a Direct Cost Line Item.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_direct_cost_line_item, delete_a_direct_cost_line_item, and list_direct_cost_line_items. The included endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/direct_costs/{direct_cost_id}/line_items/{id}' reinforces the update operation, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: to modify an existing line item, with emphasis on partial updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'). It also advises resolving parent records with the matching list tool first ('direct_cost_id, id must identify existing parent records — resolve them with the matching list tool first') and explains defaulting behavior for project_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for creating or deleting), though that may be inferred from the verb and sibling tool names.

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