Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

List Status Change History For A Coordination Issue

list_status_change_history_for_a_coordination_issue
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the status change history for a coordination issue, sorted by most recent. Track changes and filter results using pagination and view options.

Instructions

This endpoint returns the status change history for the specified CoordinationIssue. The status change history is sorted by most recent first. Use this to enumerate Coordination Issues when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters. Returns a paginated JSON array of Coordination Issues. Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata. Required parameters: id, project_id. Procore API: Project Management > Coordination Issues. Endpoint: GET /rest/v1.0/coordination_issues/{id}/status_changes

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesURL path parameter — coordination Issue ID
project_idYesQuery string parameter — unique identifier for the project.
viewNoQuery string parameter — the extended view provides what is shown below. The normal view is the same as the extended view but excludes attribute created_by, linked_rfi and linked_observation_item. The compact view returns ...
pageNoQuery string parameter — page number for paginated results (default: 1)
per_pageNoQuery string parameter — number of items per page (default: 100, max: 100)
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description inaccurately states it returns a 'paginated JSON array of Coordination Issues' instead of status changes, contradicting the actual behavior and reducing trust.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is moderately concise but includes extraneous details about enumerating coordination issues, which are irrelevant to this tool and could be omitted for clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fails to accurately describe the return type or structure (e.g., fields of a status change entry). It also lacks information on error handling, rate limits, or authorization requirements, leaving the agent with incomplete 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all five parameters. The description mentions required parameters and pagination but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'returns the status change history for the specified CoordinationIssue', but then introduces confusion by saying 'Use this to enumerate Coordination Issues when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters', which conflates this tool with listing coordination issues themselves.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_coordination_issue_change_history. The provided usage advice is misleading, suggesting it can be used to enumerate coordination issues, which is not its purpose.

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