Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_form

Modify form details in Procore projects, including name, description, privacy settings, PDF files, and attachments.

Instructions

Update Form. [Project Management/Forms] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/forms/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
idYesForm ID
send_emailsNoDesignates whether or not emails will be sent (default false)
nameNoThe Name of the Form
descriptionNoThe Description of the Form
privateNoThe Private status of the Form
fillable_pdfNoForm's Fillable PDF. To upload a fillable PDF you must upload the entire payload as `multipart/form-data` content-type and specify each parameter as form-data together with `fillable_pdf` as files.
attachmentsNoForm's Attachments. To upload attachments you must upload the entire payload as `multipart/form-data` content-type and specify each parameter as form-data together with `attachments[]` as files.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Update Form' and includes an API method (PATCH), implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. The mention of 'PATCH' hints at partial updates but lacks clarity on default behaviors or side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is brief but inefficiently structured. It front-loads 'Update Form' but wastes space on redundant category labels and API endpoint details that don't aid the agent. While concise, it lacks essential explanatory content, making it under-specified rather than optimally succinct.

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 of an update operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances like the effect of 'send_emails' or file upload requirements for 'fillable_pdf'. For a mutation tool without structured support, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented in the input schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update Form. [Project Management/Forms] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/forms/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_form' and adds only a category label and API endpoint. It does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'create_form' or other update operations, making it vague and minimally informative.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing form), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_form' or 'delete_form'. The agent is left without context for tool selection.

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