Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archicad MCP Connector

Archicad MCP Connector

by davidharutyunyan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Modify property definitions

modify_property_definitions
DestructiveIdempotent

Modify user-defined Archicad property definitions: rename, move, edit options, defaults, expressions, and availability in one undo step.

Instructions

Changes user-defined properties in one undo step: rename, move to another group, description, option set options (replace the list — unchanged options keep their identity so element values survive — or add/remove/rename options), default value or expressions, and availability (replace, add, remove, or add the classifications of given elements). Built-in properties and the value type cannot be changed (delete and recreate instead). Returns {results: [{guid, name, group, type, availabilityCount, warnings?} | {error}]}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "definitions": "<definitions>"
    },
    "name": "modify_property_definitions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
undoNameNoName of the undo step shown in Archicad
definitionsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: one undo step, option identity preservation so element values survive, constraints on built-in/value type, and the exact return shape. Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/readOnly=false; description aligns and elaborates.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then return shape. Dense but no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex, destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers operations, constraints, and return format. It omits minor schema-level details like maximum counts but is otherwise complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%, so the description helps by summarizing the modifiable aspects (rename, group, description, options, defaults, availability) and clarifying availability modes. However, undoName is not mentioned and the schema already describes most parameters in detail, so it adds only moderate value.

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: 'Changes user-defined properties', and enumerates the aspects that can be modified. It does not name sibling tools like create_property_definitions or delete_property_definitions, so it only partially distinguishes from siblings, but the scope is clear.

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?

Provides a clear when-not and alternative: built-in properties and value type cannot be changed, so delete and recreate instead. It does not explicitly state positive when-to-use versus create_property_definitions, but the context is clear.

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