Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_resource_v1_1

Modify schedule resource data in Procore projects to maintain accurate project planning and resource allocation.

Instructions

Update resource. [Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/schedule/resources/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe ID of the Project the Resource belongs to
idYesID of the resource
resourceYesResource object
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update resource' and includes a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impacting schedule calculations), or error conditions. The '[Legacy]' tag suggests possible deprecation or limited support, but this isn't explained. Without annotations, critical behavioral details are missing.

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 concise with two parts: a tautological purpose and an endpoint reference. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—the endpoint details are useful for debugging but don't aid the agent in tool selection. The structure is front-loaded with the vague 'Update resource', but the second part doesn't add operational clarity. It avoids waste but lacks substance.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'resource' is in this context, what fields are updatable, the impact of updates, or the response format. The '[Legacy]' tag hints at context but isn't elaborated. For a tool that modifies schedule resources, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 clear descriptions for 'project_id', 'id', and 'resource' (though 'resource' is vaguely described as 'Resource object'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining what properties the 'resource' object might contain (e.g., name, quantity, cost) or formatting examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the vague 'resource' object definition.

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 resource' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'update_resource_v1_1'. It adds minimal context with '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/schedule/resources/{id}', which hints at the domain and HTTP method but doesn't clearly specify what a 'resource' is (e.g., a schedule resource like labor or equipment) or what fields can be updated. It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_resource' (without version) or other update tools.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project and resource ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating resources), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_resource_v1_1' or 'list_resources_v1_1'. The agent is left with no usage context beyond the generic 'update' action.

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