revit_batch_startStart a persistent, read-only run over local, UNC, or RSN Revit models to batch-query parameters and inspect data without modifying files.
Start a persistent, read-only run over local, UNC, or RSN models.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | No | ||
| years | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| recursive | No | ||
| parameter_rules | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description usefully adds that the run is 'persistent' and accepts local, UNC, or RSN model sources, which is real context beyond annotations, but says nothing about how to observe progress or retrieve results.
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?
One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tightly packed.
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 5-parameter start tool that begins an asynchronous polling workflow, the description omits what gets collected, how the five inputs shape the run, and how to track completion. Substantially under-specified for its complexity.
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 five parameters (paths, years, folder, recursive, parameter_rules) are undocumented in both schema and description. The single mention of 'local, UNC, or RSN models' only obliquely hints at paths and leaves years, folder, recursive, and parameter_rules completely 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?
States the verb (Start) and that it operates on local/UNC/RSN models, but 'a persistent, read-only run' never says what is being collected. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling revit_batch, revit_batch_fetch, or revit_batch_status, so an agent can't tell which batch tool to pick.
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 guidance and no mention of alternatives. The async lifecycle siblings (revit_batch_status, revit_batch_fetch, revit_batch_cancel) exist but the description never says this is the entry point that must precede them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.