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 mentions the ability to limit returned elements but doesn't explain what happens if no elements are selected (e.g., returns empty list or error), how selection state is determined, or any performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a complex system like Revit.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and an additional feature mentioned second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying functionality, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly stating it's for retrieving user-selected elements).

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 complexity of interacting with Revit and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'elements' refer to in Revit context (e.g., walls, doors), the format of returned data, error conditions, or dependencies on user interaction. For a tool in a specialized domain with no structured output, more detail is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'limit' clearly documented in the schema as 'Maximum number of elements to return'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only mentioning 'You can limit the number of returned elements' without providing additional context like default behavior if limit is omitted or practical usage tips.

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 action ('Get elements currently selected') and resource ('in Revit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_current_view_elements' or 'ai_element_filter', which might also retrieve elements in different contexts.

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 sibling tools like 'get_current_view_elements' (which retrieves elements from the current view) or 'ai_element_filter' (which might filter elements differently), leaving the agent without context for choosing between them.

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