Lists loaded Revit family types and optionally filters them by name, so AI clients can inspect available families before modifying or placing BIM components.
Lists loaded family types with optional name filtering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| contains | 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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'loaded' qualifier (only families present in the project), but does not mention the default limit or any pagination/return-count behavior.
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. Efficient, though its brevity is part of why parameter coverage is thin.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a two-parameter list tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the limit/pagination semantics, leaving the agent guessing about result-set size behavior.
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 carries the burden. It explains the name-filter (contains) semantically but leaves the limit parameter and its default of 50 completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 ('loaded family types'), with a scoping qualifier ('loaded') and optional name filtering. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with the close sibling list_family_categories.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named (e.g. list_family_categories or place_family). The phrase 'optional name filtering' only weakly implies how the contains parameter should be used, leaving the agent to infer routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.