Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_submittal_v1_1

Modify submittal details in Procore projects by updating fields like dates, attachments, status, and distribution lists to maintain accurate project documentation.

Instructions

Update Submittal. [Project Management/Submittals] PATCH /rest/v1.1/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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update Submittal' and includes a technical endpoint, but fails to describe that this is a mutation operation (PATCH), potential side effects (e.g., email notifications via 'send_emails' parameter), or any permissions/constraints implied by the many admin-only fields in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.

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 concise with two parts: 'Update Submittal' and the technical endpoint. It is front-loaded but under-specified, as the first part is redundant. While efficient, it lacks necessary explanatory content, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 inadequate. It does not address the tool's purpose, behavioral implications, or usage context. The schema handles parameter details, but the description fails to provide a holistic understanding for a mutation tool with many constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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., admin-only fields, conditional enabling). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. However, the description does not highlight key parameters or usage patterns.

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 clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Submittals]' and a technical endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/submittals/{id}', but these do not explain what the tool does—only that it updates a submittal, which is already implied by the name. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, failing to distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_submittal' or 'update_submittal_approver'.

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, such as requiring an existing submittal, or differentiate from other update-related tools (e.g., 'update_submittal_approver'). Without any context or exclusions, the agent is left without 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