Fetch the identifiers of every element of a given type in an Archicad plan, using optional filters and databases for targeted model queries.
Returns the identifier of every element of the given type on the plan. It works for any type. Use the optional filter parameter for filtering. (Tapir, Element Commands)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filters | No | ||
| databases | No | ||
| elementType | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that it works for any type and hints at filtering; it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or behavior when a type has no instances.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return value. The trailing '(Tapir, Element Commands)' tag is filler, and the filter sentence restates the obvious, but there is no bloat.
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 exists, so the description usefully states the return shape ('identifier of every element'), which is the key missing piece. However it omits any mention of the databases scoping parameter and gives no semantics for the filter enum, leaving a three-parameter tool under-explained.
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 parameter burden. It mentions the type and a 'filter parameter' (singular, while the schema defines a 'filters' array) but never explains the 13 ElementFilter options, and the 'databases' parameter is not mentioned at all.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('identifier of every element of the given type') with scope ('on the plan'). It is clear what comes back (identifiers), which distinguishes it from richer siblings like GetAllElements or GetDetailsOfElements, though it never names those siblings 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?
Only guidance is 'Use the optional filter parameter for filtering,' which is tautological rather than directive. There is no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing against the very close siblings FilterElements or GetAllElements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.