Revit Model MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Elements

revit_delete

Destructive

Delete Revit elements and their dependencies, including dependent counts. Use dry-run to preview counts; large deletions need a confirm token.

Instructions

Delete elements and their Revit dependencies; the count includes dependents. dry_run returns the count. Above 500 elements including dependents a confirm_token from a first call is needed; revit_run_actions refuses such deletions.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dry_run`	No
`document`	No	Title or file name substring of the target open document; needed when several are open.
`element_ids`	Yes
`confirm_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.10.0Oct 14, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / confirm_token / title
```
Removed value: -"Confirm Token"
```

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 / element_ids / title
```
Removed value: -"Element Ids"
```
removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"revit_deleteArguments"
```

removedOutput schema / title

Removed value: -"revit_deleteDictOutput"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.1Oct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm_token

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Confirm Token"
+}

Addedv0.7.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: deletion cascades to Revit dependencies, the reported count includes dependents, and a >500 threshold gates execution behind a confirm_token. It stops short of stating whether the operation is undoable or what permissions it needs.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cascade behavior, then the dry_run and confirmation mechanics. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on the destructive cascade and confirmation flow. For a destructive tool with low schema coverage it is largely complete, though element_ids semantics and undo/reversibility guidance are missing.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'document' is described), so the description must compensate. It clarifies dry_run and confirm_token semantics well, but leaves the required element_ids undocumented (beyond an intuitive name) and adds nothing about the document parameter.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (elements and their Revit dependencies), and signals scope by noting the count includes dependents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like revit_remove_links or revit_change_type.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explains the conditional workflow: dry_run returns a count, and above 500 elements a confirm_token from a first call is required, while revit_run_actions refuses such deletions. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over alternatives such as revit_undo_last or how it relates to revit_remove_links.

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

Deploy Server