Skip to main content
Glama

Navisworks MCP

by io.scanbimlabs
OverviewAdmin

nwd_get_viewpoints

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYesBase64url-encoded URN of the translated Navisworks model as returned by nwd_upload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / model_id / description
      Previous value: -"Base64-encoded URN"New value: +"Base64url-encoded URN of the translated Navisworks model as returned by nwd_upload."
    • addedInput schema / properties / model_id / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "dXJuOmFkc2sub2JqZWN0czpvcy5vYmplY3Q6c2NhbmJpbS1ud2QtMTcxMjM0NTY3OC9Ub3dlckFfTUVQU3RydWN0X1IwNy5ud2Q"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses side effects (none, pure read, idempotent), logging to D1 usage_log, result caps, and error behavior (e.g., per-view failures are swallowed). It also details rate limits and error codes, providing more transparency than annotations typically offer.

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 well-structured with clear sections (When to use, When NOT to use, APS scopes, Rate limits, Errors, Side effects). It is long but every sentence provides actionable information, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No redundancy.

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?

The description comprehensively covers usage, errors, and side effects. However, since there is no output schema, the description only vaguely hints at the return shape ('viewpoint_count:0', 'first two levels of the object tree') without specifying exact fields. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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%: model_id is fully described with an example and guidance to use the URN from nwd_upload. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb-resource combination: 'List saved viewpoints / camera positions and top-level view containers for a translated Navisworks model.' It clearly explains the enrichment with the object tree, making it distinct from sibling tools like nwd_get_clashes or nwd_list_objects.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides a dedicated 'When to use' paragraph with concrete scenarios (coordination meetings, deep-linking) and an explicit 'When NOT to use' section stating that camera matrices are not returned, guiding agents away from misuse. This exceeds the expected guidance.

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

All Navisworks MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources