Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

download_coordination_issues

Export coordination issues from Procore projects to BCF, CSV, or PDF formats with customizable filters and column configurations.

Instructions

Download Coordination Issues. [Project Management/Coordination Issues] GET /rest/v1.0/coordination_issues/export

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesUnique identifier for the project.
filters__assignee_company_id__NoFilter item(s) with matching assignee vendor companies.
column_stateNoOptional array of column configuration objects from frontend table state. Allows export to respect custom column visibility and ordering. Each object should have a 'field' property with the column ...
filters__assignee_id__NoFilter item(s) with matching assignees.
filters__ids__NoFilter item(s) with matching ids.
filters__location_id__NoFilter item(s) with matching locations.
filters__searchNoFilter item(s) with the matching search query. The search is performed on title and issue number.
filters__coordination_issue_file_id__NoFilter item(s) with the exact coordination issue file.
filters__status__NoFilter item(s) with matching status.
filters__updated_atNoFilter item(s) within a specific updated at iso8601 datetime range.
filters__issue_type__NoFilter item(s) with matching issue_type.
filters__priority__NoFilter item(s) with matching priority.
filters__trade_id__NoFilter item(s) with matching trades.
filters__overdueNoFilter item(s) with matching Overdue.
viewNoExport View.
sortNoSort item(s) by an attribute. The default sort is ascending. To sort in descending order, prepend the sort value with a hyphen character '-'
export_formatYesExport File Format.
pageNoPage number for pagination
per_pageNoItems per page (max 100)
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 mentions 'download' and an export endpoint, implying a file generation or data retrieval operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, destructive, requires specific permissions, involves pagination, or returns a file vs. structured data. This is inadequate for a tool with 19 parameters.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing the API endpoint. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is clear but minimal.

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 (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., file download vs. JSON), behavioral constraints, or usage context. For a data export tool with many filters, more guidance is needed to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 19 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining filter interactions or export format implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool downloads coordination issues and includes the API endpoint, which clarifies the action and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_coordination_issues' or 'export_company_time_index_to_csv', leaving the scope vague regarding what 'download' entails versus 'list'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for listing, exporting, or managing coordination issues, the description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to tools like 'list_coordination_issues' or 'export_email_communication_to_pdf'.

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