Closes the active Revit document, optionally saving changes first. Use it to end the current document session and control whether modifications are saved.
Closes the active Revit document, optionally saving changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the operation targets the active document and optionally saves, but does not explicitly warn that unsaved changes are lost if save is false.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, target, and only option efficiently.
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?
For a simple document-close tool with annotations covering destructiveness and an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. The main missing detail is an explicit warning about unsaved changes when save is false.
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 sole parameter is `save`, and the description explains its semantic effect: changes are optionally saved before closing. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by giving meaning beyond the boolean type.
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 (closes) and resource (active Revit document), with the optional save behavior. It is clearly distinct from open_document and save_document, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus save_document or when not to close. The context is implied by the operation, but the description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.