Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_submittal

Update submittal details in Procore projects by modifying fields like dates, descriptions, attachments, and status to manage construction documentation.

Instructions

Update Submittal. [Project Management/Submittals] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/submittals/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
idYesSubmittal ID
send_emailsNoDesignates whether or not emails will be sent (default false)
actual_delivery_dateNoThe Actual Delivery Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set if the project has submittal delivery information enabled
attachmentsNoSubmittal 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 `attachments[]` as files.
confirmed_delivery_dateNoThe Confirmed Delivery Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set if the project has submittal delivery information enabled
cost_code_idNoThe ID of the Cost Code of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins
custom_textarea_1No*This field can only be set by admins
custom_textfield_1No*This field can only be set by admins
descriptionNoThe Description of the Submittal
design_team_review_timeNoThe Design Team Review Time of the Submittal (in days) *This field can only be set if the project has schedule calculations enabled
distribution_member_idsNoThe IDs of the Distribution Members of the Submittal
due_dateNoThe Due Date of the Submittal *This field is not available to be set if sequential approvers is enabled
internal_review_timeNoThe Internal Review Time of the Submtital (in days) *This field can only be set if the project has schedule calculations enabled
issue_dateNoThe Issue Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins
lead_timeNoThe Lead Time of the Submittal (in days) *This field can only be set by admins or if the project has schedule calculations enabled
location_idNoThe Location of the Submittal
numberYesThe Number of the Submittal
privateNoWhether the Submittal is Private or not
prostore_file_idsNoAn array of Prostore File IDs. The Prostore Files will be associated with the Submittal as attachments.
received_dateNoThe Received Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins
received_from_idNoThe Received From of the Submittal
required_on_site_dateNoThe Required On Site Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins or if the project has schedule calculations enabled
responsible_contractor_idNoThe Responsible Contractor of the Submittal
revisionNoThe Revision of the Submittal
scheduled_task_keyNoThe key of the Scheduled Task of the Submittal. Note that use of this parameter is deprecated. Please use `scheduled_task_id` instead. *This field can only be set if the project has submittal deliv...
scheduled_task_idNoThe ID of the Scheduled Task of the Submittal *This field can only be set if the project has submittal delivery information enabled and the user has permissions to view the calendar tool
source_submittal_log_idNoThe ID of the Source Submittal. *By setting this field, the submittal will be created as a revision of source submittal.
specification_section_idNoThe ID of the Specification Section of the Submittal
status_idNoThe ID of the Submittal Status of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins
sub_job_idNoThe ID of the Sub Job of the Submittal
submit_byNoThe Submit By Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update Submittal' without indicating that this is a mutation operation, what permissions are required, whether emails are sent by default, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with 32 parameters and no safety hints.

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 extremely concise ('Update Submittal'), which could be seen as efficient, but it under-specifies the tool's purpose and context. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential information, making it less helpful despite its brevity.

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 (32 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations. For a mutation tool with rich input schema but no other structured data, the description should do more to guide the agent effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields or constraints. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Submittal' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_submittal_approver' or 'update_submittal_v1_1', leaving the agent uncertain about its exact function.

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, context, or exclusions, such as when to use 'update_submittal_v1_1' instead. This absence forces the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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