revit-mcp

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 information ('获取...详细信息'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('获取 Revit 当前活动视图的详细信息') and adds clarifying examples ('包括视图类型、名称、比例等属性'). There is no wasted text, and it directly addresses what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and examples of returned attributes, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets a basic threshold for this low-complexity tool.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline score of 4 is applied, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取 Revit 当前活动视图的详细信息' (Get detailed information about Revit's current active view). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('当前活动视图' - current active view), and lists example attributes ('视图类型、名称、比例等属性' - view type, name, scale, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_view_elements', which might retrieve elements within the view rather than view properties.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active Revit session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_current_view_elements' (which might focus on elements in the view). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose, with no explicit context for selection.

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