Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

update_timecard_entry_project

Modify existing timecard entries for a project in Procore to update hours, billable status, dates, or descriptions. This tool helps correct errors and adjust project time tracking data.

Instructions

Update timecard entry (Project). [Project Management/Field Productivity] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timecard_entries/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
idYesID of the timecard entry
hoursNoTotal number of hours worked (excluding breaks) for the timecard entry. This property is not applicable if the timesheet time entry is configured for start time and stop time.
lunch_timeNoThe duration of the lunch break, in minutes, for the timecard entry. This property is only applicable if the tmesheet time entry is configured for start time and stop time.
party_idNoThe ID of the Party of the Timecard Entry
time_inNoThe start time of the timecard entry in ISO 8601 format. This property is only applicable if the timesheet time entry is configured for start time and stop time.
time_outNoThe stop time of the timecard entry in ISO 8601 format. This property is only applicable if the timesheet time entry is configured for start time and stop time.
billableNoThe billable status of the timecard entry. Must be either true or false.
dateNoThe date of the timecard dntry in ISO 8601 format.
datetimeNoThe date and time of the record. This property is mutually exclusive with the Date property.
descriptionNoThe description of the timecard entry.
timecard_time_type_idNoThe ID of the timecard time type corresponding to the timecard entry.
cost_code_idNoThe ID of the cost code corresponding to the timecard entry.
login_information_idNoThe ID of the login information corresponding to the timecard entry.
timesheet_idNoThe ID of the timesheet corresponding to the timecard entry.
daily_log_segment_idNoDaily Log Segment ID
clock_in_idNoThe ID of the clock in GPS position corresponding to the timecard entry.
clock_out_idNoThe ID of the clock out GPS position corresponding to the timecard entry.
origin_idNoThe ID of the related external data.
origin_dataNoThe value of the related external data.
line_item_type_idNoThe ID of the line item type pertaining to the time card entry.
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 states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites or merges fields, error handling, or rate limits. The PATCH method hint is minimal and not elaborated.

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 a single sentence with technical details (PATCH endpoint), which is concise but could be more front-loaded with user-facing information. It avoids waste but lacks structure to guide the agent effectively beyond the basic action.

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 (21 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or provide context on the update operation's scope. For a mutation tool with many parameters, more completeness is needed to assist 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. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('timecard entry (Project)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_timecard_entry_company' or 'update_timecard_entry', which are likely similar but for different contexts, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 mentions '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and a PATCH endpoint, but this is technical context rather than usage instructions. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are referenced.

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