get_ifc_translatorsList available IFC export translator names for an active Archicad project so you can select a valid option when running export_ifc.
Lists the IFC export translators of the project (localized names; the first one is Archicad's default). Use a name in export_ifc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: names are localized and the first entry is Archicad's default, which is ordering semantics an agent could not get from the schema.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the verb and scope; the parenthetical detail about localization and default ordering earns its place and nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema, so the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does (localized translator names, first is default). It could note that the list may be empty or that names must be passed verbatim, but it is adequate for a trivial read 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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description uses its limited space to explain how the returned names feed into export_ifc rather than inventing parameter detail that doesn't exist.
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 (Lists) and resource (IFC export translators of the project), and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_ifc_data and export_ifc. The parenthetical narrows the return content further.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Use a name in export_ifc,' which is the only real downstream consumer. It doesn't state when-not to call it, but for a zero-parameter enumeration that's a minor omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.