Skip to main content
Glama
sharafutdinovdi

Revit Model MCP

by sharafutdinovdi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Element Details

revit_element_details
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve parameters and geometry for a Revit element by ID, including room area, volume, boundaries, location, and bounding box. Use room center for placement inside rooms.

Instructions

Read parameters and geometry of an element by Revit ID.

Returns data with element, instance parameters, available typeElement parameters and related warnings; no warnings return an empty list. Rooms include level, area in m2, volume in m3 and boundaries in mm; parameter values include display/internal values and metric units when available. Location and boundingBox use model mm rounded to one decimal; unavailable geometry is omitted. Use roomCenterMm for placement inside rooms; boundingBox.centerMm may lie outside a nonrectangular room. An absent element or document, read failure or timeout raises an error; partial data is not returned.

If more than one Revit instance is running, document is required; otherwise any instance may respond.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentNoCase-insensitive substring of the target active document title or file name; default null leaves requests unaddressed, so any instance may respond. Use a unique substring with multiple instances; revit_list_instances instead returns all matching instances, or all instances when omitted.
element_idYesRequired positive integer Revit element ID from revit_query_elements or revit_view_elements; no default. The ID must exist in the target document.
timeout_secondsNoPositive integer seconds to wait for a result after pickup (120 when omitted); HTTP uses this as its response budget. Expiry raises an error, and increasing it does not override the add-in's execution limits.
pickup_timeout_secondsNoPositive integer seconds to wait for the add-in to pick up a local or SSH job (300 when omitted); ignored over HTTP. A pickup timeout raises an error but the pending job may still execute later.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / document / description
      Added value: +"Case-insensitive substring of the target active document title or file name; default null leaves requests unaddressed, so any instance may respond. Use a unique substring with multiple instances; revit_list_instances instead returns all matching instances, or all instances when omitted."
    • addedInput schema / properties / element_id / description
      Added value: +"Required positive integer Revit element ID from revit_query_elements or revit_view_elements; no default. The ID must exist in the target document."
    • addedInput schema / properties / pickup_timeout_seconds / description
      Added value: +"Positive integer seconds to wait for the add-in to pick up a local or SSH job (300 when omitted); ignored over HTTP. A pickup timeout raises an error but the pending job may still execute later."
    • addedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / description
      Added value: +"Positive integer seconds to wait for a result after pickup (120 when omitted); HTTP uses this as its response budget. Expiry raises an error, and increasing it does not override the add-in's execution limits."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes well beyond this by disclosing error behavior, partial-data policy, unit conventions, rounding behavior, omitted geometry, and multi-instance routing. This is rich, accurate behavioral context with no contradiction.

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?

The description is appropriately sized for a tool with complex output behavior and is well-structured into distinct concerns: core purpose, returned data, units/geometry, errors, and instance routing. Every sentence provides useful information, and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to restate return types, but it still covers essential operational details: units, rounding, omitted geometry, empty warnings, error behavior, and document disambiguation. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters well. The description adds some reinforcement, such as document behavior and timeout errors, but does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Read parameters and geometry of an element by Revit ID." This clearly distinguishes the tool from listing, querying, or mutation siblings and states its exact scope. The title is generic, but the description fully compensates.

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?

The description provides clear context, such as using roomCenterMm for placement inside rooms and requiring the document parameter when multiple Revit instances run. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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