Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Create A Model Manager Viewpoint And Link It To The Issue (REST V2.0)

create_a_model_manager_viewpoint_and_link_it_to_the_issue_rest

Create a Model Manager viewpoint and link it to a coordination issue in Procore. Requires company, project, coordination issue, scene, and BIM model UUID.

Instructions

Proxies to Model Manager POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/bim/viewpoints (RequestsCreateViewpointRequest: scene_id, optional name, payload per MM OpenAPI), plus Procore-required bim_model_uuid for application validation. Then inserts coordination_issue_bim_viewpoints with viewpoint_uuid (MM viewpoint id). Optional observer/notification side effects enqueue CoordinationIssues::ObserverWorker. Use this to create a new Coordination Issues in Procore. Creates a new Coordination Issues and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201). Required parameters: company_id, project_id, coordination_issue_id, scene_id, bim_model_uuid. Procore API (v2.0): Project Management > Coordination Issues. Endpoint: POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/coordination_issues/{coordination_issue_id}/viewpoints

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the company.
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
coordination_issue_idYesURL path parameter — coordination Issue ID
nameNoJSON request body field — optional viewpoint name (MM `RequestsCreateViewpointRequest.name`).
scene_idYesJSON request body field — scene UUID (MM `scene_id` / `UuidUUID`).
bim_model_uuidYesJSON request body field — required by Procore `ViewpointCreateViaModelManagerService` validation (not sent to MM create as a top-level field).
payloadNoJSON request body field — the payload for this Coordination Issues operation
camera_dataNoJSON request body field — used when top-level `payload` is absent — becomes `camera` in the MM payload. Send a JSON object or a JSON string (parsed server-side).
redlines_dataNoJSON request body field — used when top-level `payload` is absent — becomes `markup` in the MM payload (object or JSON string).
sections_dataNoJSON request body field — used when top-level `payload` is absent — parsed value is set on `clipping.planes` in the MM payload. Model Manager expects an array of clipping planes (`TypesClippingPlane`); object or JSON string...
render_modeNoJSON request body field — the render mode for this Coordination Issues operation
bim_file_idNoJSON request body field — accepted in the JSON body for parity with other viewpoint APIs; **not** applied by MM create in this flow.
bim_view_folder_idNoJSON request body field — accepted in the JSON body for parity with other viewpoint APIs; **not** applied by MM create in this flow.
snapshot_upload_uuidNoJSON request body field — accepted in the JSON body; **not** applied by MM create in this flow unless part of `payload`.
primaryNoJSON request body field — sets `is_primary` on the coordination-issue viewpoint mapping.
positionNoJSON request body field — sets ordering `position` on the coordination-issue viewpoint mapping (auto-incremented if omitted).
visibilityNoJSON request body field — the visibility for this Coordination Issues operation
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it proxies to Model Manager, inserts a mapping record, and has optional side effects (enqueues ObserverWorker). It also notes which parameters are ignored in the current flow. This adds significant value beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. No contradictions with annotations.

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 reasonably concise given the complexity, with each sentence contributing useful information (proxy, required fields, side effects, endpoint). However, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) and front-load the core purpose before technical details.

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?

The description covers the two-step process, required parameters, side effects, and return value (HTTP 201 with created object). It lacks detailed output structure but that is mitigated by the REST endpoint convention. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a complex tool with many parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'bim_model_uuid' is required for Procore validation but not sent to MM, and that 'camera_data', 'redlines_data', and 'sections_data' are alternatives to 'payload'. This extra context enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool proxies to Model Manager to create a viewpoint and links it to a coordination issue. It mentions the specific endpoint and the required parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling viewpoint tools like 'create_a_bim_viewpoint' or 'batch_get_model_manager_viewpoints_by_uuid_rest_v2_0_issue', which could cause confusion.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Coordination Issues' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites beyond required parameters. The lack of explicit usage context limits its helpfulness.

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