Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_submittal_approver

Modify approver details for construction submittals in Procore projects, including comments, attachments, and forwarding workflows.

Instructions

Update Submittal Approver. [Project Management/Submittals] PATCH /rest/v1.0/submittal_approvers/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesSubmittal Approver ID
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
send_emailsNoDesignates whether or not emails will be sent (default false)
submittal_idYesSubmittal ID
attachments_to_uploadNoSubmittal Approver's 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_t...
attachment_idsNoSubmittal Approver's Attachment IDs. The Attachments specified here will be saved as attachments through the request.
upload_idsNoUploads to attach to the response
commentNocomment
submittal_response_idYessubmittal_response_id
sent_dateNoParameter is only available to admins.
returned_dateNoParameter is only available to admins.
forward_toNoParams used only when forwarding for review. Designates who the new reviewer is and what their due date is
associated_attachmentsNoSubmital Approver's Attachments to be carried forward. The Attachments specified here will be carried forward to the next person in the workflow.
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. It only states 'Update Submittal Approver' and includes an HTTP method (PATCH), which implies a mutation but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects, rate limits, or what happens to existing data. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 13 parameters.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which adds some structure, but the front-loaded content lacks substance, making it less helpful.

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 (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in a project management setting.

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%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since coverage is high, the 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 Approver' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, making it vague about what the tool actually does. While it includes a category '[Project Management/Submittals]' and HTTP method 'PATCH', these do not sufficiently explain the purpose.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be relevant, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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