Revit Model MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create MEP Run

revit_create_mep_run

Destructive

Create connected Revit MEP runs (duct, pipe, cable tray, conduit) from model mm points; missing Z uses level elevation plus default offset. Reports unplaceable elbows as unjoined pairs.

Instructions

Create connected duct, pipe, cable tray or conduit segments from model mm points. A missing Z uses the level elevation plus the kind's default offset. Unplaceable elbows are reported as unjoined pairs.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`level`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`document`	No	Title or file name substring of the target open document; needed when several are open.
`width_mm`	No
`height_mm`	No
`offset_mm`	No
`points_mm`	Yes
`type_name`	No
`connect_to`	No
`diameter_mm`	No
`system_type`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed15 schema fields changedv0.10.0Oct 14, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / connect_to / title
```
Removed value: -"Connect To"
```
removedInput schema / properties / diameter_mm / title
```
Removed value: -"Diameter Mm"
```

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 / height_mm / title
```
Removed value: -"Height Mm"
```
removedInput schema / properties / kind / title
```
Removed value: -"Kind"
```
removedInput schema / properties / level / title
```
Removed value: -"Level"
```
removedInput schema / properties / offset_mm / title
```
Removed value: -"Offset Mm"
```
removedInput schema / properties / points_mm / title
```
Removed value: -"Points Mm"
```
removedInput schema / properties / system_type / title
```
Removed value: -"System Type"
```
removedInput schema / properties / type_name / title
```
Removed value: -"Type Name"
```
removedInput schema / properties / width_mm / title
```
Removed value: -"Width Mm"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"revit_create_mep_runArguments"

removedOutput schema / title

Removed value: -"revit_create_mep_runDictOutput"

Addedv0.9.1Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: how a missing Z is resolved (level elevation + kind's default offset) and how failed elbows surface as unjoined pairs. It omits the dry_run preview behavior, which is a relevant behavioral trait for a mutating tool.

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?

Three tight sentences: action first, then two behavioral notes. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the edge-case details.

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 explained, but for a 12-parameter destructive creation tool the definition is thin. It never clarifies the width/height vs diameter split by kind, how connect_to behaves, or what dry_run does, leaving substantial gaps.

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 8% (one of twelve params), so the description must carry the load but does not. It explains points_mm Z handling and the offset default, yet leaves width_mm, height_mm, diameter_mm, system_type, type_name, connect_to and dry_run entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Create') plus the exact resource ('connected duct, pipe, cable tray or conduit segments'), and the four-kind enumeration maps directly to the kind enum. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like revit_create_wall without opening either schema.

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?

The description implies usage (build MEP runs from model points) but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as revit_create_wall or a generic run/action tool, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Context is inferable from the name but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server