Archicad-MCP

by alesdev88

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Create issues from rule failures

create_issues_from_failures

Destructive

Convert failed quality-rule results into Archicad issues and attach the offending elements for direct review.

Instructions

Create an Archicad issue from a rule's failures and attach the failing elements (requires 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": {
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_issues_from_failures"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`port`	No
`rule_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is declared. The description adds useful behavioral detail about attaching failing elements and the Tapir dependency, but it does not reveal what destructive effects may occur or what gets modified beyond the new issue.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and source, then adds the prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the presence of annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, the unexplained port parameter and lack of explicit sibling differentiation leave meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 indirectly references rule_id through 'rule's failures,' but it says nothing about the port parameter at all, leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Create an Archicad issue'), the source data ('from a rule's failures'), and an additional behavior ('attach the failing elements'). This is sufficient to distinguish it from the generic sibling create_issue and from other issue-related tools.

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 when to use this tool, namely when there are rule failures to convert into issues, and it provides a prerequisite ('requires Tapir add-on'). However, it does not explicitly route agents away from alternatives such as create_issue or explain when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server