Skip to main content
Glama
TylerIlunga

Procore MCP Server

Update Viewpoint Mapping And/Or Model Manager Viewpoint Content (REST V2.0)

update_viewpoint_mapping_and_or_model_manager_viewpoint_content

Updates viewpoint mapping (primary/position) on a coordination issue and optionally patches Model Manager viewpoint fields by merging camera, redlines, sections, visibility, or sending a full payload.

Instructions

Updates the MM-backed mapping (viewpoint_id = viewpoint_uuid): primary and position on bim_viewpoints_coordination_issues, and optionally name / payload fields via Model Manager PATCH. Discrete fields (camera_data, sections_data, redlines_data, visibility, render_mode) are merged into the current MM payload after loading the viewpoint from Model Manager, unless payload is sent (full replace of MM payload). Parity keys such as scene_id / **`bim_mo... Use this to update an existing Coordination Issues (only the supplied fields are changed). Updates the specified Coordination Issues and returns the modified object on success. Required parameters: company_id, project_id, coordination_issue_id, viewpoint_id. Procore API (v2.0): Project Management > Coordination Issues. Endpoint: PATCH /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`).
nameNoJSON request body field — passed to Model Manager viewpoint PATCH (`name`) when provided.
scene_idNoJSON request body field — accepted but not applied on PATCH (create-only relocation).
bim_model_uuidNoJSON request body field — accepted but not applied on PATCH.
payloadNoJSON request body field — the payload for this Coordination Issues operation
camera_dataNoJSON request body field — when `payload` is absent — merged into MM payload as `camera` (object or JSON string).
redlines_dataNoJSON request body field — when `payload` is absent — merged into MM payload as `markup`.
sections_dataNoJSON request body field — when `payload` is absent — merged into MM payload as `clipping.planes`.
render_modeNoJSON request body field — the render mode for this Coordination Issues operation
bim_file_idNoJSON request body field — accepted but not applied on this PATCH flow.
bim_view_folder_idNoJSON request body field — accepted but not applied on this PATCH flow.
snapshot_upload_uuidNoJSON request body field — accepted but not applied on this PATCH flow.
primaryNoJSON request body field — sets `is_primary` on the coordination-issue viewpoint mapping.
positionNoJSON request body field — sort order on the join row; send `null` to clear when supported by validation.
visibilityNoJSON request body field — the visibility for this Coordination Issues operation
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the merge behavior: discrete fields (camera_data, redlines_data, etc.) are merged into the existing MM payload unless 'payload' is sent for full replacement. It also notes that certain fields (scene_id, bim_model_uuid, etc.) are accepted but not applied. This adds valuable context about side effects and idempotency.

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 informative but somewhat verbose, including an incomplete sentence ('Parity keys such as scene_id / bim_mo...') and extraneous details like the API endpoint path. While front-loaded with key information, it could be more concise and complete.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (18 parameters, no output schema, nested objects), the description covers the core behaviors: mapping update, MM content patch, merge vs replace, and accepted but not applied fields. It mentions required parameters and the two viewpoint types. Missing return value details but acceptable without output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds nuance, such as clarifying that 'viewpoint_id' can be either MM-backed UUID or legacy numeric ID, and explaining how discrete fields are merged. This enriches the understanding beyond the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates an MM-backed mapping and optionally Model Manager viewpoint content, specifying the verb 'updates' and the resource 'coordination issue viewpoint'. It details the fields involved (primary, position, name, payload, discrete fields) and distinguishes between legacy and MM-backed viewpoints.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says 'Use this to update an existing Coordination Issues (only the supplied fields are changed)' and lists required parameters, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer alternative tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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