Skip to main content
Glama

get_ifc_project_info

Retrieve basic IFC project details including name, description, and entity type counts from Blender building models.

Instructions

Get basic information about the IFC project, including name, description, 
and counts of different entity types.

Returns:
    A JSON-formatted string with project information

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_ifc_project_info' MCP tool. It connects to the Blender addon via a persistent socket connection and sends the 'get_ifc_project_info' command, returning the JSON response or an error message.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_ifc_project_info() -> str:
        """
        Get basic information about the IFC project, including name, description, 
        and counts of different entity types.
        
        Returns:
            A JSON-formatted string with project information
        """
        try:
            blender = get_blender_connection()
            result = blender.send_command("get_ifc_project_info")
            
            # Return the formatted JSON of the results
            return json.dumps(result, indent=2)
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error getting IFC project info: {str(e)}")
            return f"Error getting IFC project info: {str(e)}"
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('JSON-formatted string') but doesn't cover other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error conditions, or if it requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one specifying the return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and the return format, but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or error handling. With no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it should provide more guidance to be fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline expectation. No extra value is added, but none is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get basic information about the IFC project, including name, description, and counts of different entity types.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('IFC project'), and scope ('basic information'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ifc_georeferencing_info' or 'get_ifc_properties'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with multiple sibling tools that also retrieve IFC data (e.g., 'get_ifc_georeferencing_info', 'get_ifc_properties'), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JotaDeRodriguez/Bonsai_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server