Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Model MCP

Model MCP

by sharafutdinovdi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Build Snapshot Report

revit_build_report

Build a local Excel report from Revit snapshot JSON without contacting Revit, optionally including findings and model changes from earlier snapshots.

Instructions

Build a local Excel report from snapshots without contacting Revit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "snapshots_dir": "<snapshots_dir>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "revit_build_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
findingsNoOptional findings with model, severity, rule, element_ids (or elementIds), and recommendation.
output_pathYesNew .xlsx file path, resolved on the machine running this server; 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. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / output_path / description
      Previous value: -"New .xlsx file path on the MCP client machine; existing files are never replaced."New value: +"New .xlsx file path, resolved on the machine running this server; existing files are never replaced."
  2. 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"
  3. 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=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the operation is fully local and requires no live Revit connection, but it does not disclose that the run writes a file to the server filesystem or that the output is refused if the path exists (that detail lives only 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the offline constraint is front-loaded where it matters most. It is arguably too compressed given the tool builds a multi-sheet report, but nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and full schema description coverage, the description only needs to establish purpose and the no-Revit behavioral stance, and it does both. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing from the combined description-plus-schema.

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 (snapshots_dir, output_path, findings, previous_dir) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about snapshot schema version, findings structure, or how previous_dir matching works, so 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 and resource ('Build a local Excel report from snapshots') and adds a differentiator ('without contacting Revit') that separates it from Revit-touching siblings like revit_export or revit_audit_report. It stops short of naming which sibling produces snapshots (e.g. revit_model_snapshot) as the input source.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when you already have snapshots on disk and want an offline Excel artifact. There is no explicit when-not, no prerequisite statement about obtaining snapshots first, and no mention that previous_dir enables a Changes comparison, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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