Counts Revit model elements by category, so you can inventory doors, rooms, walls, and other building components in an open model.
Đếm số phần tử mô hình theo từng hạng mục (category).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| revit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the fact that counting is grouped by category, with no mention of scope, filtering, or misconfiguration behavior — nearly nothing beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is appropriate in length. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, but the tool still leaves the lone parameter undocumented and offers no usage routing across many similar siblings. For a counting tool in a crowded family, this is not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is the opaque token 'revit' (string or null). The description says nothing about what this parameter means, whether it selects a model/file/connection, or what happens when it is omitted, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb (đếm/count) and resource (phần tử mô hình theo hạng mục/model elements by category), so an agent can tell it aggregates counts rather than listing elements. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like thong_ke_phong or khoi_luong_*, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative among the ten sibling counting/statistics tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the category-aggregation option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.