Archicad-MCP

by alesdev88

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Export IFC

export_ifc

Destructive

Instructions

Save the project as an IFC file, the step after verify_ifc_export_readiness. DRY-RUN BY DEFAULT: returns the translator, path, file type and scope, and lists every translator; pass dry_run=false to write. path: absolute, ending in .ifc or .ifczip. translator: a name from the project's IFC translators (default: the preview translator). scope: EntireProject, VisibleElementsOnAllStories (default), AllElementsOnCurrentStory, VisibleElementsOnCurrentStory or SelectedElementsOnly. Refuses to replace an existing file unless overwrite=true. Archicad exports from the floor plan or the 3D window, so from any other window it first brings the floor plan to the front and leaves it there. The commit checks the file and returns its size. Never opens or merges IFC. Needs Tapir 1.6.0.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "export_ifc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	Yes
`port`	No
`scope`	No	VisibleElementsOnAllStories
`dry_run`	No
`overwrite`	No
`translator`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.10.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but give no detail; the description supplies the important nuance that the call is dry-run by default, refuses to replace existing files unless overwrite=true, and has a UI side effect (brings the floor plan to the front and leaves it there). It also notes the commit verifies the file and reports its size, and that a versioned dependency is required.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The safety-critical dry-run default is front-loaded and the remaining sentences are terse per-parameter notes with no filler. It is dense and lengthy, but nearly every clause conveys a distinct constraint.

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?

For a destructive, 6-parameter export tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers defaults, side effects, file-collision behavior, required dependency and sequencing. An output schema exists, and the one return behavior that matters (file size returned at commit) is still mentioned.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden and does well: it specifies path format (absolute, .ifc/.ifczip), translator semantics and default, the full scope enumeration, and the meaning of dry_run and overwrite. Only the port parameter is left undocumented, a minor gap for a connection-level argument.

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 opening clause gives a concrete verb and resource ("Save the project as an IFC file") and immediately positions it relative to the sibling verify_ifc_export_readiness, so an agent can distinguish it from save_project and the readiness check without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the sequencing ("the step after verify_ifc_export_readiness"), the default behavior (dry-run unless dry_run=false), the scope of what a dry run returns, and the negative case ("Never opens or merges IFC"). The overwrite refusal and the prerequisite Tapir 1.6.0 are explicit rather than inferred.

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

Deploy Server