Retrieve metadata from the active Revit model, including title, file path, active view, and level.
Retrieves metadata about the currently open model in the bound Revit instance (title, file path, active view, level).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | ||
| doc_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read by saying 'Retrieves metadata' and hints at a multi-instance binding via 'the bound Revit instance', but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what happens when no model is open.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are parenthetically listed efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.
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?
An output schema exists, so the field enumeration in the description is helpful rather than necessary. However, given zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the description does not fully cover how to invoke the tool or what constraints apply.
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 0% and the description never references the two parameters (port, doc_name). The phrase 'bound Revit instance' weakly gestures at instance/port selection but does not explain how port or doc_name affect the lookup, leaving both parameters undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (metadata about the currently open model) and enumerates the returned fields (title, file path, active view, level). It reads clearly as a read-only introspection call distinct from mutation-oriented siblings, though it does not name or contrast any sibling tool explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as revit_list_instances or revit_get_selection, nor any prerequisite conditions. Usage must be inferred purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.