Skip to main content
Glama
sharafutdinovdi

Revit Model MCP

by sharafutdinovdi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Apply View Template

revit_apply_view_template
Destructive

Apply a view template to one or more Revit views to standardize visibility, graphics, and settings. Preview changes with an optional dry run.

Instructions

Apply a matching view template to one or more views.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewsYes
dry_runNo
documentNoTitle or file name substring of the target open document; needed when several are open.
templateYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / document / description
      Previous value: -"Case-insensitive substring of the target open document's title or file name. Required to disambiguate when the Revit process has more than one document open; omit only when a single document is open (the active document is used). An unknown or ambiguous reference is rejected before any change."New value: +"Title or file name substring of the target open document; needed when several are open."
    • removedInput schema / properties / document / title
      Removed value: -"Document"
    • removedInput schema / properties / dry_run / title
      Removed value: -"Dry Run"
    • removedInput schema / properties / template / title
      Removed value: -"Template"
    • removedInput schema / properties / views / title
      Removed value: -"Views"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"revit_apply_view_templateArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"revit_apply_view_templateDictOutput"
  2. Addedv0.9.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only batch scope ('one or more views') and does not disclose what gets overwritten, whether changes are reversible, how dry_run behaves, or whether the operation requires an active document.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is arguably too terse for a destructive four-parameter tool with low schema coverage. It reads as under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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 described. However, for a destructive mutation with a dry_run option, document scoping, and only 25% schema description coverage, the description omits critical context needed to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25%, with only the 'document' parameter documented. The description does not explain the 'views', 'template', or 'dry_run' parameters, their formats, or required matching behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: apply a view template to one or more views. Clear enough to distinguish from sibling view operations like revit_set_view_visibility or revit_activate_view, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope limitations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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