Skip to main content
Glama
ZedMoster

Revit MCP Server

by ZedMoster

create_pipes

Create multiple pipes in Revit with automatic unit conversion and type matching. Specify coordinates, diameters, and system types to generate plumbing or mechanical piping systems.

Instructions

在Revit中创建管道,支持批量创建,遵循JSON-RPC 2.0规范。 mcp_tool使用时params不要有任何注释信息

特性:

  • 支持批量创建多个管道

  • 自动处理单位转换(毫米转英尺)

  • 自动匹配管道类型和系统类型

  • 支持指定管道直径

  • 完善的错误处理机制

参数: ctx (Context): FastMCP上下文对象 method (str): JSON-RPC方法名,默认为"CreatePipes" params (List[Dict]): 管道参数列表,每个字典包含: - pipeTypeName (str): 管道类型名称 - systemTypeName (str): 管道系统类型名称 - startX (float): 起点X坐标(毫米) - startY (float): 起点Y坐标(毫米) - startZ (float): 起点Z坐标(毫米) - endX (float): 终点X坐标(毫米) - endY (float): 终点Y坐标(毫米) - endZ (float): 终点Z坐标(毫米) - diameter (float): 管道直径(毫米)

返回: dict: JSON-RPC 2.0格式的响应,结构为: 成功时: { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "result": [ { "elementId": "元素ID", "name": "名称", "familyName": "族名称" }, ... ], "id": request_id } 失败时: { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "error": { "code": int, "message": str, "data": any }, "id": request_id }

示例: response = create_pipes(ctx, params=[ { "pipeTypeName": "默认", "systemTypeName": "循环供水", "startX": 0, "startY": 0, "startZ": 3000, "endX": 5000, "endY": 0, "endZ": 3000, "diameter": 50 }, { "pipeTypeName": "标准", "systemTypeName": "生活热水", "startX": 5000, "startY": 0, "startZ": 3000, "endX": 5000, "endY": 5000, "endZ": 3000, "diameter": 40 } ])

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodNoCreatePipes
paramsNo
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: batch creation capability, automatic unit conversion (millimeters to feet), automatic matching of pipe and system types, diameter specification, and error handling. It also documents the JSON-RPC response format for both success and failure cases. This provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (特性, 参数, 返回, 示例) but is quite lengthy with detailed parameter documentation and full response format specifications. While informative, some content could be more concise. The initial sentence about JSON-RPC 2.0 and MCP usage notes feels somewhat technical and could be streamlined for clarity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity of a batch creation tool with 9 actual parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It documents all parameters with units and examples, describes the JSON-RPC response format for both success and failure cases, includes a detailed usage example, and explains key behavioral features like unit conversion and type matching. This fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage (schema only shows 'method' and 'params' as generic objects), the description comprehensively documents all 9 actual parameters within the params array: pipeTypeName, systemTypeName, startX/Y/Z, endX/Y/Z, and diameter. It specifies units (millimeters), coordinate meanings, and provides concrete examples. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail and adds significant semantic value.

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 '在Revit中创建管道,支持批量创建' (create pipes in Revit, supports batch creation), which provides a specific verb ('创建' - create) and resource ('管道' - pipes). It distinguishes from siblings like create_walls or create_ducts by specifying pipes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_cable_trays or create_ducts beyond naming the resource type.

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 like create_ducts or create_cable_trays. It mentions '支持批量创建' (supports batch creation) which could imply a usage scenario, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative advantages over other creation tools. The only contextual note is about JSON-RPC 2.0 compliance, which is technical rather than usage guidance.

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/ZedMoster/revit-mcp'

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