Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Project Person

update_project_person

Update an existing Project User's directory record in Procore. Modify fields such as name, job title, employee details, and more using the Core Directory API.

Instructions

Update the specified Project User. Use this to update an existing Directory records (only the supplied fields are changed). Updates the specified Directory records and returns the modified object on success. Required parameters: project_id, id, last_name. Procore API: Core > Directory. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/people/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the Procore project
idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier of the Directory resource
viewNoQuery string parameter — specifies which view of the resource to return (which attributes should be present in the response). Users without read permissions to Directory are limited to the normal and extended views. If a v...
first_nameNoJSON request body field — the First Name of the Project Person
last_nameYesJSON request body field — the Last Name of the Project Person
is_employeeNoJSON request body field — the Employee status of the Project Person
employee_idNoJSON request body field — the Employee ID of the Project Person
origin_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the External Data associated with the Project Person
job_titleNoJSON request body field — the Job Title of the Project Person
work_classification_idNoJSON request body field — the unique identifier for the work classification of the Project Person.
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and that the modified object is returned, which provides some additional behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage and return details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be structured more formally.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial update behavior, required parameters, and return value. However, it lacks information on error handling, prerequisites, or permissions, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters. The description merely repeats the required parameters (project_id, id, last_name) without adding new semantic information. Therefore, it does not add value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'Update the specified Project User' and specifies the resource as Directory records. The verb and resource are clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_a_person' or 'update_company_person', which reduces clarity for distinguishing when to use this specific tool.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for decision-making among many similar update tools.

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