Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_project_user

Modify user details within a Procore project to update contact information, roles, or permissions for project team members.

Instructions

Update project user. [Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/users/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
idYesID of the user
run_configurable_validationsNoIf true, validations are run for the corresponding Configurable Field Set.
abbreviated_nameNoThe Initials of the Project User
addressNoThe street Address of the Project User
avatarNoProject User Avatar. To upload avatar you must upload whole payload as `multipart/form-data` content-type and specify each parameter as form-data together with `user[avatar]` as file.
business_phoneNoThe Business Phone number of the Project User
business_phone_extensionNoThe Business Phone Extension of the Project User
cityNoThe City in which the Project User resides
country_codeNoThe Country Code of the Project User (ISO-3166 Alpha-2 format)
email_addressNoThe Email Address of the Project User
email_signatureNoThe Email Signature of the Project User
employee_idNoThe Employee ID of the Project User
fax_numberNoThe Fax Number of the Project User
first_nameNoThe First Name of the Project User
is_activeNoThe Active status of the Project User
is_employeeNoThe Employee status of the Project User
job_titleNoThe Job Title of the Project User
last_nameNoThe Last Name of the Project User
mobile_phoneNoThe Mobile Phone number of the Project User
notesNoThe Notes (notes/keywords/tags) of the Project User
state_codeNoThe State Code of the Project User (ISO-3166 Alpha-2 format)
vendor_idNoThe Vendor ID of the Project User
zipNoThe Zip Code of the Project User
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update project user' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required authentication, potential side effects (e.g., email notifications), rate limits, or error conditions. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/users/{id}' hints at an HTTP method and endpoint, but this is technical rather than behavioral guidance.

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 extremely concise—only one sentence plus an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update project user') but lacks elaboration. While efficient, it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity (24 parameters, no annotations). Every sentence earns its place, but more content could be justified.

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 tool's complexity (24 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update's scope (partial vs. full), success/failure responses, or interaction with other tools (e.g., 'create_project_user'). The endpoint reference adds some context but fails to provide a complete picture for safe and effective use.

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 detailed descriptions for all 24 parameters (e.g., 'abbreviated_name: The Initials of the Project User'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to rules, when coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 project user' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what is being updated (e.g., user details, permissions, status) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_company_user' or 'update_project_vendor', which also update user-related entities. It provides minimal value beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), context (e.g., updating a user within a specific project), or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'update_company_user', 'update_project_vendor'), this omission leaves the agent without direction.

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