Skip to main content
Glama
sharafutdinovdi

Revit Model MCP

by sharafutdinovdi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Build Snapshot Report

revit_build_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a local Excel report from Revit snapshots without contacting Revit. Include optional findings and previous snapshots to highlight changes.

Instructions

Build a local Excel report from snapshots without contacting Revit.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
findingsNoOptional findings with model, severity, rule, element_ids (or elementIds), and recommendation.
output_pathYesNew .xlsx file path on the MCP client machine; existing files are never replaced.
previous_dirNoOptional directory of earlier snapshots matched by model title for the Changes sheet.
snapshots_dirYesDirectory of schema-version-1 JSON snapshots on the MCP client machine.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / findings / title
      Removed value: -"Findings"
    • removedInput schema / properties / output_path / title
      Removed value: -"Output Path"
    • removedInput schema / properties / previous_dir / title
      Removed value: -"Previous Dir"
    • removedInput schema / properties / snapshots_dir / title
      Removed value: -"Snapshots Dir"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"revit_build_reportArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"revit_build_reportDictOutput"
  2. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the report is built locally from snapshots without contacting Revit, which is useful behavioral context, though it doesn't mention auth needs, rate limits, or file-overwrite behavior (the latter is in the schema).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and output type. No wasted words; appropriately sized for a simple report-building tool.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It could mention optional sheets (Changes) or findings, but the schema documents those, so no critical gap remains.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Build') and resource ('local Excel report from snapshots') and distinguishes itself from Revit-contacting siblings via 'without contacting Revit.' It doesn't name an alternative sibling explicitly, but the scope is clear enough for selection.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies usage when offline snapshots exist and Revit contact is undesirable, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The condition 'without contacting Revit' provides some context but not full routing guidance.

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