Navisworks MCP
Server Details
Navisworks coordination and clash detection via APS — reports, viewpoints, model objects.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: upload, status report, clash detection, viewpoint listing, and object listing. No overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate when to use each tool.
All tools use consistent 'nwd_' prefix and verb+noun pattern (upload, export_report, get_clashes, get_viewpoints, list_objects). Naming is predictable and follows a single convention.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Navisworks coordination workflow. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, fitting within the typical 3-15 range.
The tools cover the core lifecycle: upload, translation monitoring, clash detection, object querying, and viewpoint access. Missing is the ability to fetch a specific element by ID directly, but filters in nwd_list_objects mitigate this. No major workflow gaps.
Available Tools
5 toolsnwd_export_reportAInspect
Build a coordination report for a translated Navisworks model: translation status/progress, derivative outputs, available views (2D sheets / 3D viewables), total element count, and a per-category element breakdown. Doubles as the canonical way to poll translation status after nwd_upload.
When to use: after nwd_upload to check whether translation has completed before calling clash/object tools; at the end of a coordination session to generate a status snapshot for the weekly BIM report; when auditing a model revision to confirm expected element counts per discipline.
When NOT to use: do not use for a per-element property dump — use nwd_list_objects; do not use for clash results — use nwd_get_clashes.
APS scopes required: viewables:read data:read bucket:read (read-only).
Rate limits: APS default ~50 req/min per endpoint; this tool issues up to 4 sequential APS calls (manifest, metadata, properties — two with retry). When polling for translation completion, backoff: 5s, 10s, 30s, 60s, 120s — Model Derivative NWD translation typically completes in 1-10 min but large federated models can take 20+ min.
Errors: 401 APS token expired (retry); 403 missing scope (report); 404 URN not found (model was never uploaded or bucket TTL expired); 409 N/A; 422 translation failed permanently — inspect report.translation_status == "failed" and report.derivatives[].status; 429 rate limit (backoff); 5xx APS upstream (retry once). Property extraction may legitimately 202 "isProcessing" — the tool handles retry and then silently swallows to still return manifest/metadata (element_count will be 0 until properties index is built).
Side effects: none. Pure read. Idempotent — report reflects current APS state. Logs usage to D1 usage_log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Output shape. "json" (default) returns the full structured report object including derivatives[], views[], category_breakdown. "summary" still returns the same keys — the parameter is preserved for forward-compatibility and currently echoes back in the response for caller templating. | |
| model_id | Yes | Base64url-encoded URN of the translated Navisworks model as returned by nwd_upload. Same value used by the other nwd_* tools. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavior: pure read, idempotent, no side effects, logs usage, APS scopes required, rate limits with backoff suggestions, error handling for 401/403/404/422/429/5xx, and handling of 202 'isProcessing' with retry and silent fallback.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, when not to use, scopes, rate limits, errors, side effects). Front-loaded with main purpose. Slightly lengthy but every sentence is informative and earned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, description fully explains report contents (translation status, derivatives, views, element count, category breakdown) and edge cases (202 processing, failed translations). Complete for a 2-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds extra context: model_id is same as other nwd_* tools, format explains enum values and forward-compatibility. Adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states it builds a coordination report including translation status, derivatives, views, element count, and per-category breakdown. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like nwd_list_objects (per-element dump) and nwd_get_clashes (clash results).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides specific 'When to use' scenarios (after nwd_upload, end of coordination session, model auditing) and 'When NOT to use' with explicit alternative tools (nwd_list_objects, nwd_get_clashes). Covers both positive and negative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
nwd_get_clashesAInspect
Detect geometric/logical clashes between two element sets in an already-translated Navisworks model. Uses APS Model Derivative property extraction + same-level proximity heuristics, optionally augmented by VDC rules stored in D1 (table vdc_rules).
When to use: when coordinating federated MEP + structural + architectural models for clash review before issuing an RFI; e.g. "find duct vs. beam clashes on Level 3 before the Wed coordination meeting" or "sanity-check the latest MEP revision against structure before releasing for fabrication." Pair with nwd_export_report to produce a deliverable.
When NOT to use: do not call on a model whose translation is still "inprogress" — call nwd_export_report first and confirm translation_status == "success"; not a substitute for Navisworks Manage Clash Detective for final sign-off (this is a coordination-stage screen, not a regulatory clash report).
APS scopes required: viewables:read data:read (read-only — does not create anything in APS).
Rate limits: APS default ~50 req/min per endpoint; Model Derivative metadata/properties endpoints are the bottleneck. Properties response may return 202 "isProcessing" on first call — the worker retries once after 3s. For very large models (>50k elements) the worker caps analysis at 50x50 element cross-compare and 100 reported clashes; re-run with tighter category_a/category_b filters for exhaustive coverage.
Errors: 401 APS token expired (transient, retry); 403 missing viewables:read/data:read scope (report, do not retry); 404 URN not found or not translated (prompt user to re-run nwd_upload); 409 not applicable; 422 model translated but property index unavailable — typically means source NW version unsupported or translation partially failed (supported: Navisworks 2015+); 429 rate limit (backoff); 5xx APS upstream (retry once). If properties.data.collection is empty the tool returns clash_count: 0 with a note rather than erroring — the agent should treat that as "model not ready" and retry later.
Side effects: none in APS. Reads vdc_rules from D1 when both categories are supplied. Logs usage to D1 usage_log. Idempotent — same inputs on a stable model yield the same clash list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | Yes | Base64url-encoded URN of the translated Navisworks model, exactly as returned by nwd_upload.model_id (or the urn field). Do NOT re-encode. Starts with "dXJuOmFkc2sub2JqZWN0czpvcy5vYmplY3Q6" for OSS-derived URNs. | |
| category_a | No | First element-set filter, case-insensitive substring match against each element's Revit/Navisworks Category. Common values: "Mechanical", "Ducts", "Pipes", "Plumbing", "Electrical", "Structural Framing", "Structural Columns", "Walls", "Floors", "Ceilings". Omit (with category_b) to auto-split MEP vs. structural. | |
| category_b | No | Second element-set filter, same semantics as category_a. Must be supplied together with category_a to take effect — supplying only one is ignored in favor of auto-split. Provide both to also look up matching VDC rules from D1. | |
| clash_type | No | Clash severity class. "hard" = solid-solid interference (e.g. duct through beam) — returns severity:critical. "soft" = clearance/tolerance violations (e.g. MEP within 50mm of structure) — returns severity:warning. "all" = both. Defaults to "all" when omitted. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: read-only, APS scopes, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, caps on large models, and side effects like D1 logging.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections, front-loaded, but slightly verbose; each section adds distinct value, though some details could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, errors, limitations, and idempotency, making it actionable for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant extra meaning (auto-split logic, D1 rules lookup, default for clash_type, model_id encoding caution) that goes beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool detects geometric/logical clashes in a Navisworks model, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nwd_export_report and nwd_get_viewpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with concrete examples and conditions, plus pairs it with nwd_export_report for deliverables.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
nwd_get_viewpointsAInspect
List saved viewpoints / camera positions and top-level view containers for a translated Navisworks model. Pulls the metadata view list and enriches each 3D view with its first two levels of the object tree (viewpoint folders typically live there in NWD files).
When to use: when preparing a coordination meeting and you need a quick index of every saved viewpoint (e.g. "Level 3 Mech Room", "Clash - duct vs beam gridline C-4") to drive screenshots or BCF-style issues; when an agent needs to deep-link a 2D sheet or 3D camera into the APS Viewer.
When NOT to use: does not return camera matrices (position/target/up vectors) — APS Model Derivative does not expose those from the NWD viewpoint XML; for full camera data the source NWD must be opened in Navisworks Manage.
APS scopes required: viewables:read data:read.
Rate limits: APS default ~50 req/min; this tool fans out one object-tree call per 3D view (capped implicitly by metadata view count, usually <5). For federated models with many sheets this can approach the per-minute quota — cache the result.
Errors: 401 token (retry); 403 scope (report); 404 URN not found / translation incomplete; 409 N/A; 422 model returned empty metadata (returns viewpoint_count:0 rather than throwing — agent should verify translation via nwd_export_report); 429 rate limit (backoff); 5xx APS upstream (retry once). Per-view object-tree failures are swallowed so the overall call still returns the metadata-level view list.
Side effects: none. Pure read. Idempotent. Logs usage to D1 usage_log. Results are capped at 100 viewpoint entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | Yes | Base64url-encoded URN of the translated Navisworks model as returned by nwd_upload. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: pure read, idempotent, logs usage, rate limits, error handling for each status code, per-view object-tree failures swallowed, results capped at 100. Very transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections (when to/not use, scopes, rate limits, errors, side effects). Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly lengthy but every sentence is informative, so score 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple schema (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is very complete, covering all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, errors, side effects, and constraints. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (model_id) with schema description coverage 100%. Description adds minimal extra beyond schema (e.g., 'as returned by nwd_upload'), but the schema already provides example and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it lists saved viewpoints and top-level view containers for a translated Navisworks model, using specific verbs like 'list' and 'enriches'. It distinguishes from siblings by not returning camera matrices and directing to Navisworks Manage for that. Clear purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (coordination meetings, quick index for screenshots/BCF) and when NOT to use (does not return camera matrices, needs Navisworks Manage). Provides alternative implicitly by pointing to Navisworks Manage for full camera data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
nwd_list_objectsAInspect
List elements (objects) in the translated Navisworks model with their objectid, name, externalId, and full property bag, optionally filtered by a case-insensitive keyword matched against name and Category.
When to use: when answering "how many VAV boxes are on Level 3?", "list every steel column with mark C-*", or any per-element question; when dumping a quick takeoff of a discipline before handing off to an estimator; when an agent needs externalIds to cross-reference with a Revit or ACC issue.
When NOT to use: not for clash detection (use nwd_get_clashes); not for camera/viewpoint data (use nwd_get_viewpoints); not for full-model exports — results are capped at 100 objects per call, so use the filter argument to narrow.
APS scopes required: viewables:read data:read.
Rate limits: APS default ~50 req/min; two Model Derivative calls per invocation (metadata guid + properties). Properties endpoint may 202 "isProcessing" on first call after translation — the worker retries once after 3s. For very large models the properties payload can be tens of MB; expect higher latency.
Errors: 401 token (retry); 403 scope (report); 404 URN not found; 409 N/A; 422 property index not yet built — returns object_count:0 (poll via nwd_export_report); 429 rate limit (backoff); 5xx APS upstream (retry once). If property collection is legitimately empty the tool returns success with object_count:0 and an empty objects array.
Side effects: none. Pure read. Idempotent. Logs usage to D1 usage_log. Response includes a note field when the unfiltered collection exceeds the 100-object cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Optional case-insensitive substring. Matches if present in the element's name OR its Category property. Use Revit category names ("Ducts", "Pipes", "Structural Columns", "Walls") or mark/type fragments ("VAV", "W12x", "L3-"). Omit to return the first 100 elements of the model in property-collection order. | |
| model_id | Yes | Base64url-encoded URN of the translated Navisworks model as returned by nwd_upload. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses side effects (none, pure read, idempotent), logs usage, includes note for capped results, error details, rate limits, and retry behavior. Comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections, but slightly long; some details like error codes could be moved elsewhere. Front-loaded with core functionality, making it effective though not maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 params and no output schema, description covers usage, limitations (100 cap), errors, side effects, and even mentions response note. Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds meaningful context: filter is case-insensitive substring matching name or Category, with examples. model_id ties to nwd_upload. Adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists elements with id, name, externalId, and property bag, optionally filtered. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nwd_get_clashes and nwd_get_viewpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly lists when to use (per-element questions, takeoffs, cross-referencing) and when NOT to use (clashes, viewpoints, full exports), plus advises using filter due to 100-object cap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
nwd_uploadAInspect
Upload a Navisworks file (.nwd/.nwf/.nwc) to Autodesk Platform Services (APS) Object Storage and start an SVF2 translation job so the model becomes queryable by the other nwd_* tools.
When to use: at the start of a coordination workflow — e.g. the GC hands off a federated NWD combining MEP + structural + architectural models and the agent needs to stage it for clash review before issuing an RFI, or when a subcontractor publishes a new NWC model revision that must be ingested for weekly BIM coordination. Always the first call in a session for any new model.
When NOT to use: do not call for already-translated models (re-use the returned model_id/URN); do not use for raw Revit .rvt, IFC, or DWG — those go through a different MCP.
APS scopes required: data:read data:write data:create bucket:read bucket:create viewables:read. The worker acquires a 2-legged client-credentials token; the caller does not supply one.
Rate limits: APS default ~50 req/min per app per endpoint; Model Derivative translation job submission ~60 req/min. NWD bundles can be large (hundreds of MB); the upload PUT and translation can take minutes — translation is asynchronous, poll via nwd_export_report (manifest) with exponential backoff (e.g. 5s, 10s, 30s, 60s) before calling clash/properties tools.
Errors the agent should handle: 401 invalid/expired APS token (surface as auth failure — do not retry with same creds); 403 missing scope (report scope gap, do not retry); 404 source file_url unreachable (ask user for a fresh public URL); 409 bucket already exists (handled internally, safe to ignore); 413/422 unsupported Navisworks version — APS Model Derivative supports NWD/NWC from Navisworks 2015 and later (state the unsupported version to the user); 429 rate limited (exponential backoff, retry); 5xx APS upstream (retry once, then surface).
Side effects: creates a fresh transient OSS bucket (scanbim-nwd-, 24h TTL) and uploads the file as an object, then POSTs a Model Derivative translation job. NOT idempotent — each call creates a new bucket/URN even for the same file_url. Logs usage to the D1 usage_log table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_url | Yes | Publicly reachable HTTPS URL from which the worker will GET the Navisworks file bytes. Must return the raw binary (not an HTML landing page). Pre-signed S3 URLs, ACC/BIM360 signed-resource URLs, and Cloudflare R2 public URLs all work. Max practical size ~4 GB (Cloudflare Workers fetch body limit applies). | |
| file_name | Yes | Logical filename for the OSS object. Must end in .nwd, .nwf, or .nwc (case-insensitive) so APS picks the correct translator. Avoid spaces and non-ASCII — the worker sanitizes to [A-Za-z0-9._-]. Follow ScanBIM convention: <project>_<discipline>_<rev>.nwd (e.g. TowerA_MEPStruct_R07.nwd). | |
| project_id | No | Optional free-form project label stored alongside the upload record for caller-side correlation. Not sent to APS. Typical values: ACC project GUID, internal job number, or short slug. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: side effects (creates bucket, upload, translation job, not idempotent), authentication (APS scopes, token acquisition), rate limits, expected errors with handling instructions, and asynchronous nature with polling guidance. This is comprehensive transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections but is lengthy. However, every sentence adds unique value given the tool's complexity (upload, translation, error handling, etc.). It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description mentions that the tool returns a model_id/URN for reuse and references sibling tools (nwd_export_report for polling). It covers all necessary context: prerequisites, workflow position, error handling, rate limits, and side effects, making it fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: for file_url, it explains acceptable URL types (pre-signed, ACC, R2) and size limits; for file_name, it adds naming conventions and sanitization details; for project_id, it clarifies its optional correlation purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (upload Navisworks file and start SVF2 translation), the specific file types (.nwd/.nwf/.nwc), and the goal (make model queryable by other nwd_* tools). It distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first call in a coordination workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with concrete workflow examples (GC handoff, subcontractor revision). It specifies not to call for already-translated models and directs other file types (RVT, IFC, DWG) to a different MCP, providing clear guidance on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!