Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

list_all_equipment_company

Retrieve all equipment records for a company in Procore. Filter by equipment details, service dates, project assignments, or status to manage field assets.

Instructions

List all Equipment. [Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesUnique identifier for the company.
pageNoPage
per_pageNoElements per page
filters__updated_atNoReturn item(s) last updated within the specified ISO 8601 datetime range. Formats: `YYYY-MM-DD`...`YYYY-MM-DD` - Date `YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ`...`YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ` - DateTime with UTC Offset `YYY...
filters__managed_equipment_idNoReturn item(s) with the specified Managed Equipment ID.
filters__managed_equipment_category_idNoReturn item(s) with the specified Managed Equipment Category ID.
filters__managed_equipment_type_idNoReturn item(s) with the specified Managed Equipment Type ID.
filters__managed_equipment_make_idNoReturn item(s) with the specified Managed Equipment Make ID.
filters__managed_equipment_model_idNoReturn item(s) with the specified Managed Equipment Model ID.
filters__company_visibleNoIf true, return item(s) with 'company visible' status.
filters__current_project_idNoReturn item(s) with the specified current project ID.
filters__yearNoReturn item(s) with the specified year.
filters__statusNoReturns item(s) matching the specified status value.
filters__last_service_dateNoReturn item(s) with a last service date within the specified ISO 8601 datetime range.
filters__next_service_dateNoReturn item(s) with a next service date within the specified ISO 8601 datetime range.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all Equipment' and includes an API endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), discuss pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a list tool with 15 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 and front-loaded: 'List all Equipment.' followed by context and API endpoint in a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary words, though the inclusion of the API endpoint might be slightly verbose but informative. Every part serves a purpose, making it efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and endpoint but lacks details on output format, pagination handling, error conditions, or how filters interact. With no output schema, the description should ideally explain return values, but it does not, leaving gaps for a list tool with many filters.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company.' for company_id). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

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's purpose: 'List all Equipment.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Equipment'), and includes the context '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_all_equipment_company' or 'get_all_equipment_company_v2_0', which are similar list/search tools, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 the API endpoint but does not indicate scenarios for use, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'search_all_equipment_company' (which might offer search capabilities). Without such context, an agent lacks clear usage direction.

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