Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

list_custom_field_definitions

Retrieve custom field definitions from Procore to configure and manage project data fields for company administration and tools.

Instructions

List Custom Field Definitions. [Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools] GET /rest/v1.0/custom_field_definitions

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesUnique identifier for the company.
pageNoPage
per_pageNoElements per page
viewNoThe extended view provides what is shown below. The default view returns the same as the extended view but excludes the attribute custom_field_lov_entries. The with_lov_entries view is the same as ...
tool_nameNoThe name of the company/project level tool that is allowed read permissions to custom field definitions.
includes_configurable_field_sets_countNoIf true, response will include the number of field sets using item (custom field).
filters__with_labelNoReturn custom field definitions that label contains text
scope__typeNoReturn custom field definitions that contains fieldset type
scope__categoryNoReturn custom field definitions that contains category
scope__observations_category_idNoReturn custom field definitions that contains observations_category_id
scope__inspection_type_idNoReturn custom field definitions that contains inspection_type_id
scope__generic_tool_idNoReturn custom field definitions that contains generic_tool_id
scope__action_plan_type_idNoReturn custom field definitions that contains action_plan_type_id
sortNoDirection (asc/desc) can be controlled by the presence or absence of '-' before the sort parameter.
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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/custom_field_definitions', indicating a read-only HTTP GET operation, but does not explicitly state that it is safe, non-destructive, or detail potential side effects like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 with the core purpose ('List Custom Field Definitions'). The additional bracketed context and endpoint reference are brief and relevant. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and endpoint but lacks details on return format, error handling, or operational constraints. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the HTTP method and parameter schema, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain the purpose of 'view' options or filtering logic). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'List Custom Field Definitions' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Custom Field Definitions'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_custom_field_definitions_v1_1' or 'list_custom_field_definitions_configurable_field_sets'), leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool. It is not tautological but lacks 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 includes a bracketed note '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' which hints at administrative context but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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