Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Punch Item

update_punch_item
Idempotent

Update a specific punch item in a Procore project, modifying only provided fields and optionally attaching images. Returns the updated item.

Instructions

Update a specific Punch Item in a Project. #### Uploading images To upload images, upload the entire payload as multipart/form-data and include the images using punch_item[images][] as files, or alternatively provide Upload IDs using punch_item[upload_ids][]. Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values. id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first. Returns the modified punch item 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: id, project_id, punch_item. Procore API (v1.1): Project Management > Punch List. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v1.1/punch_items/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesURL path parameter — iD of the Punch Item
project_idYesJSON request body field — project ID to which the Punch Item belongs to
punch_itemYesJSON request body field — the punch item for this Punch List operation
attachmentsNoJSON request body field — [DEPRECATED] Punch Item Assignment 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 ...
run_configurable_validationsNoQuery string parameter — if true, validations are run for the corresponding Configurable Field Set.
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: upload mechanics (`multipart/form-data`, `punch_item[images][]`), partial update behavior, return value, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also clarifies that the id must reference an existing parent record. This context exceeds what the annotations alone provide.

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 logically organized: a clear first sentence, a dedicated upload section, followed by update behavior, id resolution, return/error info, and required parameters. It includes the endpoint and required params without unnecessary verbosity. Every section has a purpose, though the '#### Uploading images' header is slightly awkward.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, uploads, partial updates, id resolution, returns, and errors. It does not fully document the inner structure of `punch_item` or elaborate on `run_configurable_validations`, but given the openness of the object, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already describes all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining image upload options within `punch_item`, the deprecation of `attachments`, and the recommended method for resolving `id`. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 opens with 'Update a specific Punch Item in a Project', which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from related tools like create_punch_item and delete_punch_item, though it does not explicitly mention those alternative tools or when to prefer them.

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 provides clear usage context, including partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change') and a prerequisite to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first'. It does not explicitly list exclusions, but the guidance is practical and actionable.

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