Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Near Miss

update_near_miss

Update specified attributes of an existing near miss incident. Modify fields like description, affected person, or harm source, and receive the updated object.

Instructions

Update a Near Miss' attributes. Use this to update an existing Incidents (only the supplied fields are changed). Updates the specified Incidents and returns the modified object on success. Required parameters: project_id, id. Procore API: Project Management > Incidents. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/near_misses/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier of the Incidents resource
incident_idNoQuery string parameter — unique identifier of the incident
descriptionNoJSON request body field — description of event in Rich Text format
affected_person_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Affected Person. This only supports full Users from the Users endpoints.
affected_party_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Affected Person. This supports full and reference Users from the People endpoints.
harm_source_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Harm Source
affected_company_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Affected Company
managed_equipment_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Managed Equipment
work_activity_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Work Activity
custom_field_%{custom_field_definition_id}NoJSON request body field — value of the custom field. The data type of the value passed in corresponds with the data_type of the Custom Field Definition. For a lov_entry data_type the value passed in should be the ID of one ...
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this is a partial update (PATCH) and returns the modified object, but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization, or rate limits. The behavioral context is adequate but not enriched significantly beyond the 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?

The description is concise at four sentences, front-loading the main action and then providing details. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description states that the modified object is returned on success, which is helpful. It also includes required parameters and Procore API context. For an update tool, this covers key aspects, though it could mention error scenarios or validation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only reiterates required parameters (project_id, id) without adding new meaning or usage details beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a Near Miss' attributes' and specifies that only supplied fields are changed, distinguishing it from create, delete, and show tools. It also mentions the endpoint and required parameters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that this tool updates existing near misses and that only provided fields are modified. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create for new near misses. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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