Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Remove Viewpoint Association From Issue (REST V2.0; MM Soft-Delete When Applicab

remove_viewpoint_association_from_issue_rest_v2_0_mm_soft
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a viewpoint association from a coordination issue. Removes the join row and optionally deletes the Model Manager viewpoint. Requires company, project, coordination issue, and viewpoint IDs.

Instructions

Path parameter viewpoint_id must be a UUID (route constraint). The server resolves the join row by viewpoint_uuid matching that id on this coordination issue (numeric BimViewpoint ids are not valid on this path). Transaction: 1. If the mapping has viewpoint_uuid, calls Model Manager DELETE .../bim/viewpoints/{uuid}. 404 from MM is ignored; local mapping is still removed. 2. Destroys the coordination_issue_bim_viewpoints row. Enqueues `CoordinationIssues::Observe... Use this to permanently delete the specified Coordination Issues. This cannot be undone. Permanently removes the specified Coordination Issues. This action cannot be undone. Required parameters: company_id, project_id, coordination_issue_id, viewpoint_id. Procore API (v2.0): Project Management > Coordination Issues. Endpoint: DELETE /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/coordination_issues/{coordination_issue_id}/viewpoints/{viewpoint_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the company.
project_idYesURL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.
coordination_issue_idYesURL path parameter — coordination Issue ID
viewpoint_idYesURL path parameter — **MM-backed:** Model Manager viewpoint UUID (`[0-9a-f-]{36}`, case-insensitive). **Legacy:** numeric `bim_viewpoints.id` for a join row that has `bim_viewpoint_id` (no `viewpoint_uuid`).
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints. The description adds transaction details (two-step process, ignoring 404 from Model Manager) and reinforces irreversibility. However, the misleading claim about deleting coordination issues undermines transparency.

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 repetitive (e.g., 'cannot be undone' appears twice) and poorly structured, starting with technical parameter details before stating purpose. It includes irrelevant and incorrect statements (deleting coordination issues) that should be removed.

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?

The description covers the transaction flow and parameter constraints, but does not explain what the tool returns (no output schema). It also lacks prerequisites and has misleading content. Given the tool's complexity, more complete documentation is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: viewpoint_id must be a UUID, explains resolution logic (viewpoint_uuid matching, legacy numeric ids invalid), and distinguishes MM-backed vs legacy. These details help the agent understand parameter constraints.

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 title clearly states 'Remove Viewpoint Association From Issue', but the description includes contradictory statements like 'Use this to permanently delete the specified Coordination Issues' and 'Permanently removes the specified Coordination Issues', which mislead about the tool's actual purpose. The core purpose is somewhat obscured by this error.

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 alternative tools for managing viewpoint associations, such as create or get viewpoint tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or constraints like issue existence.

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