Skip to main content
Glama

Revit MCP

by io.scanbimlabs

revit_clash_detect

When to use: Perform a lightweight clash analysis between two Revit categories (e.g. Mechanical Equipment vs Structural Framing) using bounding-box overlap where available, falling back to shared-Level proximity, then annotate with any matching VDC rules stored in the D1 database. When NOT to use: Do not use as a substitute for Navisworks Manage for contractual clash reports — this is a first-pass coordination sniff test, not a certified Clash Detective run. APS scopes: data:read viewables:read (Model Derivative metadata + properties). Rate limits: APS default ~50 req/min per app per endpoint; Model Derivative translation jobs ~60 req/min; OSS uploads size-limited per file to 100MB for direct upload, larger via resumable. Errors: 401 APS token expired — refresh. 403 scope insufficient — add viewables:read. 404 URN not found — verify model_id. 429 rate limited — back off. 5xx APS upstream — retry with jitter. Side effects: Read-only against APS. May read from D1 vdc_rules table if present. Idempotent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYesBase64url-encoded URN of the translated Revit model. Always begins with 'dXJu'.
category_aYesFirst Revit category for the pairwise clash check (case-insensitive substring match). Typical MEP/structural examples: Mechanical Equipment, Ducts, Pipes, Cable Trays.
category_bYesSecond Revit category to compare against category_a. Often a structural/architectural discipline when category_a is MEP.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / category_a / description
      Previous value: -"First category (e.g. 'Mechanical Equipment')"New value: +"First Revit category for the pairwise clash check (case-insensitive substring match). Typical MEP/structural examples: Mechanical Equipment, Ducts, Pipes, Cable Trays."
    • addedInput schema / properties / category_a / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "Mechanical Equipment"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / category_b / description
      Previous value: -"Second category (e.g. 'Structural Framing')"New value: +"Second Revit category to compare against category_a. Often a structural/architectural discipline when category_a is MEP."
    • addedInput schema / properties / category_b / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "Structural Framing"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / model_id / description
      Previous value: -"Base64-encoded URN"New value: +"Base64url-encoded URN of the translated Revit model. Always begins with 'dXJu'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / model_id / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "dXJuOmFkc2sub2JqZWN0czpvcy5vYmplY3Q6c2NhbmJpbS1yZXZpdC0xNzMxMjM0NTY3L015QnVpbGRpbmcucnZ0"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / model_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^dXJu[A-Za-z0-9_-]+$"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior. It discloses read-only status ('Read-only against APS'), idempotency, D1 table reads, error handling, and rate limits. The algorithm's fallback logic is also explained, providing complete transparency beyond structured fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear section headers and front-loaded usage guidance. Each section is purposeful, though the OSS upload size note under rate limits is tangential to this tool's operation. Slight over-inclusion prevents a perfect score.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not clearly explain what the agent will receive after execution. It mentions 'annotate with matching VDC rules' but never defines the result format, list of clashes, or pagination. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a significant gap for an agent to know how to use the returned data.

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%, with each parameter already thoroughly described (e.g., base64 URN pattern, case-insensitive match, typical categories). The description adds minimal additional parameter-specific meaning; it reinforces examples but does not materially extend beyond schema. 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Perform a lightweight clash analysis between two Revit categories' with a defined method (bounding-box overlap, fallback to shared-Level proximity). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like revit_get_elements or revit_export_ifc, which address different operations.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It directly states not to substitute for Navisworks Manage for contractual reports, framing this as a 'first-pass coordination sniff test.' This gives the agent clear decision criteria and names an alternative.

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

All Revit 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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: upload ingests, get_elements/get_parameters/get_sheets/get_views retrieve different types of data, run_schedule queries tabular views, clash_detect performs spatial analysis, and export_ifc converts formats. No two tools overlap in function; even get_sheets and get_views are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent revit_<verb> pattern in snake_case, with get_* for read operations and action verbs for other operations. The naming is predictable and uniform across the entire set.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriately matches the server's scope of Revit model ingestion, exploration, analysis, and export. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle (upload, read elements/parameters/sheets/views, run schedules, clash detect, export IFC), but there is no tool to check translation status or poll the manifest, which is referenced in descriptions but not provided. This is a notable gap that can cause agents to call read tools before translation completes, leading to failures.

Resources