Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Submittal

update_submittal

Update an existing submittal in Procore by providing the project ID, submittal ID, and number. Modify fields like description, due date, status, and more.

Instructions

Update the specified Submittal. Note: Updating the workflow_data field is only supported when using the multipart/form-data request format. If you attempt to update workflow_data using a JSON request format, the request will fail with a 400 Bad Request response, along with the error message: "Error Updating Approvers.". Use this to update an existing Submittals (only the supplied fields are changed). Updates the specified Submittals and returns the modified object on success. Required parameters: project_id, id, number. Procore API (v1.1): Project Management > Submittals. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/submittals/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier of the Submittals resource
send_emailsNoQuery string parameter — designates whether or not emails will be sent (default false)
actual_delivery_dateNoJSON request body field — the Actual Delivery Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set if the project has submittal delivery information enabled
attachmentsNoJSON request body field — submittal 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_dateNoJSON request body field — the Confirmed Delivery Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set if the project has submittal delivery information enabled
cost_code_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Cost Code of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins
custom_textarea_1NoJSON request body field — *This field can only be set by admins
custom_textfield_1NoJSON request body field — *This field can only be set by admins
descriptionNoJSON request body field — the Description of the Submittal
design_team_review_timeNoJSON request body field — the Design Team Review Time of the Submittal (in days) *This field can only be set if the project has schedule calculations enabled
distribution_member_idsNoJSON request body field — the IDs of the Distribution Members of the Submittal
due_dateNoJSON request body field — the Due Date of the Submittal *This field is not available to be set if sequential approvers is enabled
internal_review_timeNoJSON request body field — the Internal Review Time of the Submtital (in days) *This field can only be set if the project has schedule calculations enabled
issue_dateNoJSON request body field — the Issue Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins
lead_timeNoJSON request body field — the Lead Time of the Submittal (in days) *This field can only be set by admins or if the project has schedule calculations enabled
location_idNoJSON request body field — the Location of the Submittal
numberYesJSON request body field — the Number of the Submittal
privateNoJSON request body field — whether the Submittal is Private or not
prostore_file_idsNoJSON request body field — an array of Prostore File IDs. The Prostore Files will be associated with the Submittal as attachments.
received_dateNoJSON request body field — the Received Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins
received_from_idNoJSON request body field — the Received From of the Submittal
required_on_site_dateNoJSON request body field — the 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_idNoJSON request body field — the Responsible Contractor of the Submittal
revisionNoJSON request body field — the Revision of the Submittal
scheduled_task_keyNoJSON request body field — the 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_idNoJSON request body field — the 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_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Source Submittal. *By setting this field, the submittal will be created as a revision of source submittal.
specification_section_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Specification Section of the Submittal
status_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Submittal Status of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins
sub_job_idNoJSON request body field — the ID of the Sub Job of the Submittal
submit_byNoJSON request body field — the Submit By Date of the Submittal *This field can only be set by admins
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains partial update behavior, the required parameters, the return value, and a critical error condition for `workflow_data` format. This fully compensates for the absence of detailed annotations and aligns with the tool's mutating nature.

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 moderately concise, with the main action stated upfront. The critical note about `workflow_data` is included but could be slightly shortened without loss of meaning. Overall, it is well-structured and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (32 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential behavior: partial updates, required fields, return value, and a key format constraint. It does not explain return value details (since no output schema), but the statement 'returns the modified object' suffices. Minor gaps include not mentioning that other fields are optional or that updates are scoped to a project.

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 provides full coverage for all 32 parameters, so the description is not required to detail them. However, it adds value by highlighting the required parameters (`project_id`, `id`, `number`) and the `workflow_data` format constraint, which is not evident from the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Update' the specified 'Submittal', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_submittal' or 'delete_submittal' by focusing on partial field updates and returning the modified object. It also includes the endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides important guidance on when to use the tool (update existing Submittals) and includes a critical note about the `workflow_data` format requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., `update_submittal_approver` for approval-specific updates), leaving some ambiguity.

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