Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Equipment Timecard Entry Approval Status

update_equipment_timecard_entry_approval_status
Idempotent

Set approval status for equipment timecard entries in bulk—pending, approved, reviewed, or billed—using an array of IDs. Needs project timesheet approval permission.

Instructions

Update approval status of equipment timecard entries (pending, approved, reviewed, billed) for the given project. Supports bulk updates: pass an array of equipment timecard entry IDs and the desired approval_status. Billed entries cannot be changed to another status (except to keep as billed). Requires project timesheet approval permission. Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values. company_id and project_id default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted. Returns the modified equipment timecard entry approval status 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: company_id, project_id, ids, approval_status. Procore API (v2.0): Project Management > Field Productivity. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/equipment_timecard_entries/update_approval

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesJSON request body field — array of equipment timecard entry IDs to update
company_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the company.
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
approval_statusYesJSON request body field — the approval status to set for all specified entries
serializer_viewNoQuery string parameter — optional response blueprint view. Defaults to `default`.
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses permission requirements, status transition constraints, default values for company_id/project_id, return value, and common error codes (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral context not available from annotations alone.

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?

The description is long but every sentence adds value, structured logically from purpose to bulk support to constraints to defaults to errors. It is front-loaded with the main action, and the API endpoint is a useful bonus.

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?

For a tool with 5 params and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: it explains the return value, error handling, required parameters, and even the API endpoint. The only optional parameter serializer_view is not mentioned but the schema covers it.

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 covers all parameters, but description adds meaning by explaining the array of IDs, the desired approval_status, and the defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, plus the patch semantics of sending only changed fields.

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 updates approval status of equipment timecard entries, listing the four statuses. It distinguishes this from general timecard update tools by focusing specifically on approval status and bulk updates.

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 provides clear context: supports bulk updates, requires project timesheet approval permission, and notes constraints like billed entries cannot be changed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the use case is obvious.

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