Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Get Tags Requiring Action Report

get_tags_requiring_action_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve people with expired or warning-period tags for a specified group. Use filters like tag IDs, employee number, or job title to narrow results.

Instructions

Retrieves a list of People who have Tags that are either expired or within their expiration warning period. This report is executed under the context of the specified Group ID. If you want to fetch data for all groups in a company, use all in place of {group_id}. Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Resource Planning records by its identifier. Returns a JSON object describing the requested Resource Planning records. Required parameters: company_id, group_id. Procore API: Resource Management > Resource Planning. Endpoint: GET /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/groups/{group_id}/reports/tag-action

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the company. This parameter accepts both formats: - **Recommended**: Procore company ID (integer) - Use this for new integrations - Legacy: LaborChart UUID format (uuid string...
group_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the group
tagIdsNoQuery string parameter — array of UUIDs representing the Tags you want to filter the report by. If not provided, the report includes all Tags available to the Group.
warningTagsNoQuery string parameter — determines whether Tags within their expiration warning period should be included in the report. If set to `false`, only expired Tags will be included.
employee_numberNoQuery string parameter — filter results by the exact employee number of the Person.
jobTitleNoQuery string parameter — whether to include the person's Job Title.
pageNoPage number for paginated results (default: 1)
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (default: 100, max: 100)
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the endpoint and return type (JSON object), but doesn't disclose significant behavior beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is relatively short but includes a clearly extraneous and conflicting sentence ('Use this to fetch the full details...'). This makes it less concise and potentially confusing.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only report with good schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the core function and required parameters. However, it lacks details on the return structure (no output schema) and the confusing sentence undermines completeness. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Input schema fully describes all 8 parameters (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add much. It only mentions required params, which is already in schema. Adequate but not extra helpful.

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 clearly states it retrieves people with expired or warning tags under a group context, but includes a confusing sentence about fetching 'full details of a specific Resource Planning records' which seems copied from another tool and contradicts the main purpose. This reduces clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It explains when to use (for expired/warning tags) and how to request all groups via 'all', but no alternatives are mentioned despite many sibling tools. The confusing sentence about 'Resource Planning records' also misguides usage.

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