Summarize doors and windows in a Revit model by family, type, size in mm, and level, with optional per-opening details like ID, sill height, and symbol.
Thống kê cửa đi, cửa sổ theo family, loại, kích thước (mm) và tầng.
chi_tiet=True trả thêm từng cửa (id, tầng, cao bệ, ký hiệu).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| revit | No | ||
| chi_tiet | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral trait beyond that: chi_tiet=True switches the output to per-door rows and names the extra fields (id, tầng, cao bệ, ký hiệu). It says nothing about ordering, performance, or scope limits, so it is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two short lines with zero filler: the grouping dimensions come first, and the detail-mode behavior follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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 and full annotations exist, so return format and safety need not be restated. However, with a 0%-covered schema, the unexplained revit parameter is a real gap that an agent must guess at before invoking the tool.
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%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains chi_tiet well, including the exact fields returned in detail mode, but the revit parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving half the inputs undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: statistics of doors/windows grouped by family, type, size in mm, and floor. This clearly distinguishes it from thong_ke_phong (rooms) and the khoi_luong_* volume siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource scope (use it when you need door/window counts by family/type/size/floor), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement nor any reference to the sibling statistics tools that could produce overlapping results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.