Retrieve Revit model name, version, levels with elevations, active view, and phase to inspect open project context before quantity takeoff or parameter checks.
Tên mô hình, phiên bản Revit, danh sách tầng (cao độ m), view đang mở, phase.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only content is a list of returned data, which is redundant given an output schema exists, so it adds no behavioral context of its own.
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?
It is short with no wasted words and front-loads the returned fields, but as a verbless fragment it is not a structured tool definition and reads like a schema dump rather than a purpose statement.
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?
Because an output schema exists, the description did not need to enumerate return values — yet that is all it does. With one undocumented parameter and no purpose or usage statement, an agent cannot confidently decide to invoke this tool over its siblings.
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?
The single parameter "revit" has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. It never references the parameter at all ("phiên bản Revit" is a returned field, not the argument), leaving its format and filtering role entirely opaque.
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?
The description is a noun-phrase list of data fields ("Tên mô hình, phiên bản Revit, danh sách tầng...") rather than a statement of what the tool does; there is no verb or action. It only restates the scope implied by the name thong_tin_du_an and never distinguishes itself from siblings such as kiem_tra_ket_noi or thong_ke_phong.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative among the ten sibling tools. An agent receives zero routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.