Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

list_inactive_company_people

Retrieve inactive personnel records from a company's directory in Procore. Filter results by employee status, job title, location, or search terms to manage access and compliance.

Instructions

List Inactive Company People. [Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/people/inactive

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesID of the Company
viewNoSpecifies which view of the resource to return (which attributes should be present in the response). If a valid view is not provided, it will default to normal.
pageNoPage
per_pageNoElements per page
filters__is_employeeNoIf true, returns item(s) where `is_employee` value is true.
filters__reference_users_onlyNoIf true, returns only people who are reference users.
filters__without_reference_usersNoIf true, returns only people who are not reference users.
filters__searchNoReturns People where the search string matches the Person's name (first, last, or full), email address, mobile phone, business phone, fax number, or job title.
filters__connectedNoIf true, returns only people who are connected users. If false, returns only people who are not connected users.
filters__state_codeNoReturns only people who have the specified state code.
filters__job_titleNoReturns only people who have the specified job title.
filters__vendor_idNoReturn item(s) with the specified Vendor IDs.
filters__trade_idNoArray of Trade IDs. Returns item(s) with the specified Trade IDs.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it's a GET operation (implied read-only) but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. For a list operation with 13 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence stating the purpose and API endpoint. There's zero wasted language. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly stating it's a read operation for retrieving filtered lists of inactive people. The API path inclusion is somewhat redundant but not harmful.

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?

For a list operation with 13 parameters (including multiple filters) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'inactive' means in this context, doesn't describe the response format, doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters exist), and provides no error handling context. With rich filtering capabilities but no output schema, the description should do more to set expectations.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how filters interact) or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Inactive Company People'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from active people listings by specifying 'inactive' status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_inactive_project_people' or 'list_company_people', which would require mentioning the company scope more prominently.

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 doesn't mention when to use this versus 'list_company_people' (for all people) or 'list_inactive_project_people' (for project-specific inactive people). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when this tool is appropriate.

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