Skip to main content
Glama

cao_bcf_ifc

WHEN clashes and control alerts must leave as a BCF 2.1 zip readable in Solibri, BIMcollab, Navisworks, Revit or Archicad: one Clash topic per clash and one Issue topic per alert of our checks, each selecting its objects by IFC GlobalId with a camera in front of them. Pass a scene or ifc (an architect's IFC text). Returns {topics, conflits, alertes, bcf_base64}: write bcf_base64 to a .bcfzip file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ifcNoIFC file content as STEP text (IFC2X3 or IFC4), e.g. an architect's model. When given, scene fields are ignored.
mursNoWalls: plan segments extruded vertically. Every coordinate in this whole scene is in MILLIMETRES, in a single plan frame whose origin you choose — X to the right, Y upward, Z up from the floor. Keep one consistent origin across murs/boites/plan: the generators never recentre anything for you.
planNo2D reference lines — drawn flat, never extruded and never counted in the quantities. Use them for axes, plot limits or setting-out marks.
boitesNoBoxes (furniture, volumes): a rectangular block placed by its CENTRE, not by a corner. Millimetres, same frame as murs[].
georefNoOptional Lambert-93 (EPSG:2154) false origin for IfcMapConversion. Local millimetres are scaled by 0.001 to CRS metres. Do not invent coordinates: omit est/nord if unknown (origin stays 0). orientation is the angle in degrees of project X from map East, counterclockwise.
cerclesNoCircles on the 2D plan, alongside plan[] lines: each has a centre and a radius, in the same unit as the plan. Use for round shapes a polyline would render badly — fillets, posts, manholes.
reseauxNoPlumbing pipe runs (EF/EC/EU/EV/EP/chauffage) — used only by cao_pdf (technical plan + linear-meter quantities per type).
toituresNoRoofs — used only by cao_pdf. WITHOUT this field: a flat roof is auto-generated over the footprint of ALL walls (legacy default). WITH it: compose freely — each entry can target a subset of walls (via `murs`), letting you build an L-shaped building's roof, or add a dormer on top of a main roof.
plomberieNoSanitary fixtures (sink, WC, shower…) — used only by cao_pdf. Same positioning as electricite.
decorationNoPaint/finish per wall — used only by cao_pdf. Colors the elevations (exterior face) and the axonometric view (face auto-detected by orientation relative to the building's centroid).
ouverturesNoDoors/windows embedded in a wall — used only by cao_pdf (elevations + axonometric view), no effect on dxf/metres.
electriciteNoElectrical symbols (outlets, switches, lights…) — used only by cao_pdf (dedicated technical plan + quantities), no effect on dxf/metres/render. Position: attached to a wall (`mur`+`position`, like ouvertures) or free (`x`,`y`).
compositionsNoNamed wall/slab layer sets declared by the project. A key that matches an inferred kind (mur_exterieur, refend, cloison, plancher, toiture) or murs[].composition drops the Hypothese flag. Each value is {libelle, couches: [{cle, epaisseur?}]}. cle: enduit, bloc_beton, isolant, ba13, ossature, enduit_platre, beton_arme, tuile, charpente, etancheite. Omit epaisseur on the load-bearing layer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / murs / items / properties / existant
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional: true for a wall of the EXISTING building when the scene is an extension. cao_permis then counts as created only what the works add.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / plomberie / items / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "baignoire",
      -  "chauffe_eau",
      -  "compteur_eau",
      -  "douche",
      -  "evier",
      -  "lavabo",
      -  "radiateur",
      -  "wc"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "baignoire",
      +  "chauffe_eau",
      +  "compteur_eau",
      +  "douche",
      +  "evier",
      +  "lavabo",
      +  "module_hydraulique",
      +  "pac_exterieure",
      +  "radiateur",
      +  "wc"
      +]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output format and structure ({topics, conflits, alertes, bcf_base64}), how topics are split, how objects are selected by GlobalId, and the camera placement. It also instructs the agent to write bcf_base64 to a .bcfzip file. It does not mention failure modes or model-size limits, but it is strong for a builder/export tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is one dense, efficient paragraph: trigger, format, target viewers, topic mapping, GlobalId selection, camera placement, input options, and return payload. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information (when to use, what to pass) is front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 13 parameters, full schema coverage, and nested objects, the description covers the tool's purpose, input modes, topic generation, and output contract explicitly. With no output schema, the return structure is spelled out, which is essential. It lacks an example or an explicit note on failure cases or prerequisites, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds the key behavioral note that passing `ifc` ignores scene fields, and explains how scene contents become BCF topics. Since all parameters are individually described in the schema, a 3 is the appropriate baseline and the description provides complementary, non-redundant context.

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 starts with a precise trigger ('WHEN clashes and control alerts must leave as a BCF 2.1 zip') and names the resource, the target viewers, and the topic-generation rule. It distinguishes itself from siblings by clearly stating it produces a BCF zip with one Clash topic per clash and one Issue topic per alert, using IFC GlobalIds and a camera. This makes the tool's purpose and output unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use the tool (clashes/control alerts needing BCF export) and what to pass (a scene or `ifc` as an architect's IFC text). It also states that `ifc` overrides scene fields. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for non-BCF exports (e.g., cao_generer_ifc, cao_pdf), leaving some routing to inference rather than explicitly stating when NOT to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources