Skip to main content
Glama

ScanBIM MCP

by io.scanbimlabs

get_model_metadata

Fetch the APS Model Derivative manifest and metadata for a URN, including translation progress, derivative outputs, and a viewer URL. Use this to confirm a model has finished translating (manifest.status == 'success') before calling detect_clashes or opening the viewer. When to use: right after upload_model to poll translation progress, or later to inspect which viewable derivatives (SVF2, thumbnail, OBJ) are available. When NOT to use: you just want a link to share — call get_viewer_link. You want the actual element properties list — this tool returns the metadata index, not the full property collection. APS scopes: data:read viewables:read 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/invalid — refresh; 403 scope or resource permission denied; 404 URN not found or job not yet submitted — check the ID; 429 rate limited — backoff and retry; 5xx APS upstream outage — retry with jitter. Side effects: READ-ONLY on APS. Inserts a row into D1 usage_log. Idempotent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
model_idYesAPS URN (base64url-encoded Autodesk object ID, starts with 'dXJu', unpadded) as returned by upload_model.

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: -"APS URN or model ID"New value: +"APS URN (base64url-encoded Autodesk object ID, starts with 'dXJu', unpadded) as returned by upload_model."
    • addedInput schema / properties / model_id / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "dXJuOmFkc2sub2JqZWN0czpvcy5vYmplY3Q6c2NhbmJpbS1tb2RlbHMvMTcwMDAwMDAwMDAwMF9idWlsZGluZy5ydnQ"
+]
  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, the description carries full burden and delivers: it states READ-ONLY, idempotency, inserts a usage_log row, lists APS scopes, rate limits, and error codes with handling hints. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is tightly organized with labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, APS scopes, Rate limits, Errors, Side effects). Every sentence delivers actionable information; no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fully equips the agent: clear purpose, usage context, alternatives, scopes, error handling, side effects, and rate limits. It even notes what the tool does not return (full properties). This is a model of completeness.

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 single parameter model_id is fully described in the schema with type, example, and source (returned by upload_model). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the APS Model Derivative manifest and metadata for a URN.' It lists concrete return contents (translation progress, derivative outputs, viewer URL) and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_viewer_link by stating what it does NOT do.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' (poll translation after upload_model, inspect derivatives) and 'When NOT to use' sections with named alternatives (get_viewer_link, property collection). This is the gold standard for usage guidance.

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

All ScanBIM 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain with clear prefixes (acc_, xr_, get_) and each has a distinct purpose. The only potential confusion is between lumion_render and twinmotion_render, but descriptions clarify the aesthetic difference. Overall, tools are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow consistent patterns: acc_* for ACC operations, get_* for metadata retrieval, and xr_launch_*/xr_list_* for XR sessions. Minor deviations like list_models instead of get_models and render tools using software names as prefixes are readable and do not hinder pattern recognition.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range but justified by the server's broad scope covering ACC, model translation, clash detection, rendering, and XR. Some render tools are stubs and could be trimmed, but they are clearly marked as roadmap items.

Completeness3/5

The set covers upload→translate→view→clash-detect→create issues/RFIs workflows well, but lacks update/delete operations for issues and RFIs, and there is no full-detail retrieval for a single issue or RFI. These gaps can cause workflow dead ends for closeout and status changes.

Resources