Skip to main content
Glama

get_ifc_relationships

Retrieve all relationships for an IFC building model entity by providing its GlobalId, returning structured JSON data for analysis.

Instructions

Get all relationships for a specific IFC entity.

Args:
    global_id: GlobalId of the IFC entity

Returns:
    A JSON-formatted string with all relationships the entity participates in

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
global_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler implementation for 'get_ifc_relationships'. Forwards the request to the Blender addon via send_command with the global_id parameter, and returns the JSON-formatted result or error message.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_ifc_relationships(global_id: str) -> str:
        """
        Get all relationships for a specific IFC entity.
        
        Args:
            global_id: GlobalId of the IFC entity
        
        Returns:
            A JSON-formatted string with all relationships the entity participates in
        """
        try:
            blender = get_blender_connection()
            result = blender.send_command("get_ifc_relationships", {
                "global_id": global_id
            })
            
            # Return the formatted JSON of the results
            return json.dumps(result, indent=2)
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error getting IFC relationships: {str(e)}")
            return f"Error getting IFC relationships: {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 states the tool retrieves relationships but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or data format specifics beyond 'JSON-formatted string.' For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully understand its behavior and limitations.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. This efficient formatting enhances usability.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks output details (e.g., structure of the JSON) and behavioral context. For a straightforward read tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps in full understanding.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'global_id' by explaining it is the 'GlobalId of the IFC entity,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's minimal title 'Global Id.' With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is adequate, though not exhaustive (e.g., no format examples).

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 all relationships for a specific IFC entity.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('relationships'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_ifc_properties' or 'get_ifc_quantities', which might retrieve different types of entity data. This makes it clear but not fully differentiated from alternatives.

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 does not mention sibling tools such as 'get_ifc_properties' or 'get_ifc_spatial_structure', which might be used for related queries about IFC entities. Without this context, users must infer usage based on the tool name alone, leading to potential confusion.

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