revit_batch_fetchDownload completed Revit snapshots to new local files without overwriting existing ones. Retrieve batch results from Revit models safely.
Download completed snapshots to new local files without overwriting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| output_dir | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / dest_dirRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Dest Dir",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / output_dirAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / run_id / titleRemoved value: -"Run Id"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "run_id",
- "dest_dir"
-]New value: +[
+ "run_id",
+ "output_dir"
+]Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"revit_batch_fetchArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"revit_batch_fetchDictOutput"v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful trait — that files land in new local files "without overwriting" — but says nothing about what happens if the run is incomplete, how many files are produced, or failure 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; the non-overwrite constraint is placed where it reads. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the detail noted elsewhere.
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 described, but for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage the description omits parameter meaning, preconditions (run must be complete), and multi-file output expectations. Too thin for the complexity involved.
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% and neither parameter is documented in either place. The description does not clarify what run_id identifies (a batch run id) or that output_dir is the local destination directory, leaving both required parameters semantically opaque.
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?
The description gives a verb and resource ("Download completed snapshots"), which is more specific than the title alone, but "snapshots" is ambiguous next to siblings like revit_model_snapshot and revit_batch_status, and nothing ties it to the batch workflow implied by the name.
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?
There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus revit_batch_status, revit_batch_cancel, or revit_model_snapshot. "Completed" weakly implies it should follow a finished batch run, but the agent must infer the workflow sequencing entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.