Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archicad-MCP

Archicad-MCP

by alesdev88
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Attach elements to an issue

attach_elements_to_issue
Destructive

Attach Archicad elements to an existing issue to highlight them, enabling targeted QA review and delivery-readiness assessment.

Instructions

Attach elements to an existing issue as highlights (requires the Tapir add-on).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>",
      "guids": "<guids>"
    },
    "name": "attach_elements_to_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portNo
guidsYes
issue_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating and destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context: the element must be an existing issue and the Tapir add-on is required. It does not explain what destruction may occur, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core action, target, and result type, then adds the important prerequisite. There is no repetition, filler, or redundancy.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, some context is already supplied. The description covers the core action and the add-on requirement, but leaves gaps around optional parameters, the exact meaning of 'highlights', and how this differs from sibling issue-attachment workflows. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps 'elements' to guids and 'issue' to issue_id, but it says nothing about the 'port' parameter, the format of guids, or the relationship between them. An agent would still have to guess the full parameter semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Attach') with a clear resource ('elements') and an explicit target ('an existing issue') and adds the qualifier 'as highlights'. This meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like move_elements, delete_elements, and add_issue_comment.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for attaching element references to an issue as highlights and notes the Tapir add-on prerequisite. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related tools such as add_issue_comment or create_issues_from_failures.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools