Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archicad-MCP

Archicad-MCP

by alesdev88
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Release Teamwork elements and sets

release_elements

Release elements, and non-element object sets, from your Teamwork workspace (Tapir). CONFIRM-GATED: without confirm=true it reports would_release (the ones actually in your workspace), not_mine and not_found.

Instructions

Release elements, and non-element object sets, from your Teamwork workspace (Tapir). CONFIRM-GATED: without confirm=true it reports would_release (the ones actually in your workspace), not_mine and not_found. With confirm=true releases them and reports released and still_mine. Unsent changes on a released element are not lost by this call; TeamworkSend is the gateway's job. object_sets takes the names reserve_elements takes; releasing a set sends that set's changes to the server first (Archicad does that as part of the release).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "release_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portNo
guidsNo
confirmNo
object_setsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / guids / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / guids / default
      Added value: +null
    • removedInput schema / properties / guids / items
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / guids / type
      Removed value: -"array"
    • addedInput schema / properties / object_sets
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "guids"
-]
  2. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the dry-run default, the exact report fields in each mode, that unsent changes survive a release, and that releasing an object_set flushes that set's changes to the server first. That is precisely the mutation-risk context an agent needs and cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the confirm gating, then caveats — a sensible ordering, and every sentence contributes. The parenthetical asides and the run-on final sentence make it slightly denser than necessary.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the return fields in both modes, which is more than sufficient. The gaps are the unexplained port parameter and the unresolved guids/object_sets relationship for a 4-parameter, all-optional tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains confirm's dual semantics and the object_sets naming contract inherited from reserve_elements, but never explicitly mentions the guids parameter or clarifies whether guids and object_sets can be combined, and the port parameter is entirely unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Release elements, and non-element object sets, from your Teamwork workspace (Tapir)." It also signals the conceptual sibling by referencing reserve_elements for the object_sets naming convention, though it never explicitly contrasts with delete_elements, a plausible confusion for an agent.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The confirm-gated two-phase workflow is spelled out with concrete outcome states (would_release/not_mine/not_found vs released/still_mine), which tells the agent exactly how to probe before committing. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusion cases such as when deletion rather than release is appropriate.

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