Skip to main content
Glama

Revit MCP

by io.scanbimlabs

revit_run_schedule

When to use: Build a tabular, spreadsheet-style schedule (rows = elements matching a keyword, columns = up to 15 shared parameters) from a translated Revit model — useful for Door Schedules, Wall Schedules, Room Schedules, and QA/QC exports. When NOT to use: Do not use when you only need raw element metadata (use revit_get_elements) or parameter schema (use revit_get_parameters). 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 — check model_id. 429 rate limited — back off. 5xx APS upstream — retry with jitter. Side effects: Read-only. Idempotent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYesBase64url-encoded URN of the translated Revit model. Always begins with 'dXJu'.
schedule_nameYesCategory name or keyword used to select rows (case-insensitive substring match on Category/name). Common examples: Walls, Doors, Windows, Rooms, Furniture, Mechanical Equipment.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • 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_-]+$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / schedule_name / description
      Previous value: -"Category or keyword to build schedule from (e.g. 'Walls', 'Doors', 'Rooms')"New value: +"Category name or keyword used to select rows (case-insensitive substring match on Category/name). Common examples: Walls, Doors, Windows, Rooms, Furniture, Mechanical Equipment."
    • addedInput schema / properties / schedule_name / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "Doors"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by disclosing APS scopes, rate limits, error codes, side effects ('Read-only. Idempotent'), and operational behavior (matching by keyword, up to 15 shared parameters). This goes well beyond basic requirements.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, with clear section headers ('When to use', 'When NOT to use', 'APS scopes', 'Rate limits', 'Errors', 'Side effects'). It is well-organized and front-loaded with the most critical usage guidance, making it easy to scan.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential context: scopes, rate limits, error handling, side effects, and input semantics. The only minor gap is a precise return format, but 'tabular, spreadsheet-style schedule' communicates the output nature sufficiently.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), and the description's mention of 'rows = elements matching a keyword' slightly reinforces the schedule_name semantics without adding new information. Since the schema covers everything, a baseline score of 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 states a precise action ('Build a tabular, spreadsheet-style schedule') with clear resource and output format ('rows = elements matching a keyword, columns = up to 15 shared parameters'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming when not to use alternatives, such as revit_get_elements and revit_get_parameters.

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?

The description provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, listing concrete use cases (Door Schedules, Wall Schedules, Room Schedules, QA/QC exports) and naming alternative tools for raw metadata and parameter schema. This fully clarifies when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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