Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Updates A Receipt Header.

updates_a_receipt_header
Idempotent

Update Procore receipt headers: status, signature, received by, shipment reference, delivery location, dynamic properties, and trigger invoice creation on finalization of commitment-based receipts.

Instructions

This endpoint allows updating various receipt header properties including status, signature, received by name, received at timestamp, shipment reference, delivery location, and related document associations. It also supports adding, updating, and removing dynamic properties. When transitioning a receipt to Final status for a PO that originates from a commitment (order_type_id == 2), an invoice (requisition) will be created in Procore for the received quantities. Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values. company_id and project_id default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first. Returns the modified receipt header on success. Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve. Required parameters: id, company_id, project_id. Procore API (v2.0): Resource Management > Materials Management. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/materials_mgmt/receipts/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesURL path parameter — the unique identifier of the receipt to update.
nameNoJSON request body field — name of the document header.
notesNoJSON request body field — notes associated with the document header.
stateNoJSON request body field — the state for this Materials Management operation
statusNoJSON request body field — the status for this Materials Management operation
order_idNoJSON request body field — the related order ID associated with the receipt.
signatureNoJSON request body field — the signature to update on the receipt.
company_idYesURL path parameter — the company identifier
project_idYesURL path parameter — the project identifier
descriptionNoJSON request body field — description of the document header.
received_atNoJSON request body field — the timestamp when the receipt was received.
shipment_idNoJSON request body field — the related shipment ID associated with the receipt.
received_by_idNoJSON request body field — the id of the user who received the receipt. Clears field if value is empty string or "-1".
delivery_locationNoJSON request body field — the location ID of the delivery location. Clears field if value is empty string or -1.
properties_to_addNoJSON request body field — collection of resource parameters to add to the document header.
shipment_referenceNoJSON request body field — the reference metadata for the shipment.
properties_to_deleteNoJSON request body field — collection of resource parameters to delete from the document header.
properties_to_updateNoJSON request body field — collection of resource parameters to update in the document header.
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond annotations by disclosing a significant side effect: transitioning to Final for a commitment-originated PO creates an invoice in Procore. Also explains partial update semantics, defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, and common HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404). No contradiction with annotations; the write nature and idempotent hint align with the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While the description is long, every sentence adds functional value: capabilities, side effects, partial update guidance, parameter defaults, error handling, and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically from behavior to usage to endpoint details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: scope of updateable fields, dynamic properties, side effects, partial update behavior, id resolution, defaults, return value, error patterns, and the exact HTTP endpoint. No critical gaps remain for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, id must be resolved via a list tool, and omitted fields retain current values. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 tool updates receipt header properties, listing specific fields like status, signature, received_at, and dynamic properties. It explicitly names the PATCH endpoint for receipt headers, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle line items or other document types.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear usage context: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' and instructs that 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use this for header updates, not line items'), relying on the tool name and sibling list for differentiation.

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