Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_rfi

Modify RFI details in Procore projects, including subject, assignees, due dates, status, and custom fields to manage construction information requests.

Instructions

Update RFI. [Project Management/RFI] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
idYesRFI ID
run_configurable_validationsNoIf true, validations are run for the corresponding Configurable Field Set.
subjectNoThe Subject of the RFI
referenceNoThe Reference of the RFI
acceptedNoThe Accepted status of the RFI - closes or opens an RFI
assignee_idNoThe ID of the Assignee User. Note: not required if the creator is an admin and the RFI is a draft. *Only admin users can set this field DEPRECATED. Please use assignee_ids instead
assignee_idsNoAn array of IDs of the Assignees of the RFI *Only admin users can set this field **If this param is not provided, the assigned_id will be used instead
required_assignee_idsNoAn array of IDs of the Assignees that are required to respond to the RFI * Only admin users can set this field ** IDs must also be present in assignee_ids
ball_in_court_idNoThe ID of the Ball in Court of the RFI. This field is DEPRECATED as of March 31, 2019 and will no longer be supported as of October 1, 2019.
draftNoThe Draft status of the RFI (Can only be changed on draft RFIs)
due_dateNoThe Due Date of the RFI *Only admin users can set this field
received_from_login_information_idNoThe ID of the Received From User of the RFI
responsible_contractor_idNoThe ID of the Responsible Contractor Vendor of the RFI
distribution_idsNoAn array of IDs of the Distributions of the RFI
numberNoThe Number of the RFI *This field will be auto-populated if the RFI is not draft
privateNoThe Private status of the RFI
project_stage_idNoThe ID of the Project Stage of the RFI *If Number By Stage is enabled in RFI settings, this will add the prefix of the project stage to the full number of the RFI.
schedule_impactNoThe Schedule Impact of the RFI
cost_impactNoThe Cost Impact of the RFI
location_idNoThe ID of the Location of the RFI
drawing_numberNoThe Drawing Number of the RFI
specification_section_idNoThe ID of the Specification Section of the RFI
cost_code_idNoThe ID of the Cost Code of the RFI
rfi_manager_idNoThe ID of the RFI Manager User of the RFI *Only admin users (or standard users, if the project's configuration allows for it) can set this field
questionNoThe Question of the RFI
custom_textfield_1NoThe Custom Textfield 1 of the RFI
custom_textfield_2NoThe Custom Textfield 2 of the RFI
custom_field_%{custom_field_definition_id}NoValue 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 ...
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update RFI' and includes a technical endpoint path, which implies a mutation operation but lacks critical details: it does not mention required permissions (e.g., admin rights for certain fields), whether updates are partial or full, potential side effects, or error handling. The endpoint hint suggests a PATCH method, but this is insufficient for comprehensive behavioral understanding.

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 with just a few words and an endpoint path, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is overly terse to the point of under-specification, missing essential context. While it wastes no words, it fails to provide necessary information, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 (29 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's role in project management, what an RFI entails, or the update behavior. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate with more detail, but it does not, leaving significant gaps in understanding for a mutation tool with many parameters.

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 parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., field purposes, admin restrictions, deprecation notes). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema.

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 RFI' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It does not specify what an RFI is (Request for Information) or what aspects can be updated, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_rfi' or 'batch_update_rfis'. This minimal description fails to convey the tool's purpose effectively.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing RFI), compare it to sibling tools like 'create_rfi' or 'batch_update_rfis', or specify any context for usage. This absence of guidelines leaves the agent without direction on appropriate tool selection.

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