Revit Model MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Model Snapshot

revit_model_snapshot

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a Revit project snapshot to audit parameter rules by category and parameter, returning affected element IDs and warning groups for batch checks.

Instructions

Read a schema version 1 project snapshot for batch audits.

Each parameter rule pairs one category with one parameter. Warning groups include at most 200 affected element IDs. Closed worksets can make the result incomplete.

If more than one Revit instance is running, document is required; otherwise any instance may respond. Non-empty skipped means the answer is incomplete; skippedCount includes entries beyond the first 100.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`document`	No	Case-insensitive substring of the target active document title or file name. Reads require exactly one matching instance; omitted document requires exactly one running instance. Zero or multiple matches fail before publishing. revit_list_instances returns all matching instances, or all running instances when omitted.
`process_id`	No	Exact positive Revit process ID. Takes precedence over document; if both are supplied they must agree.
`parameter_rules`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No	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.
`pickup_timeout_seconds`	No	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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.7.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive behavioral caveats beyond them: warning groups cap at 200 element IDs, closed worksets can truncate results, a non-empty 'skipped' means the answer is incomplete, and skippedCount only reflects entries past the first 100. That is exactly the kind of incompleteness disclosure an auditing agent needs.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences are dense, caveat-bearing facts with no filler. The structure is a bit list-like and jumps between unrelated topics (parameter rules, warning caps, instance selection, skipped counts) without grouping, but nothing is wasted.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the key completeness signals (skipped/skippedCount), the instance-selection precondition, and result-truncation causes. For a 5-parameter audit tool this gives an agent everything needed to call it and interpret gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 80% (baseline 3), and the description goes further by explaining the one undocumented parameter: 'Each parameter rule pairs one category with one parameter.' It also restates the instance-resolution precondition for the omitted document/process_id case, adding meaning over the schema text.

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 ('Read a schema version 1 project snapshot') and scopes it to 'batch audits'. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent read tools such as revit_model_health or revit_document_info, so an agent still has to infer which aggregate view it wants.

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 phrase 'for batch audits' implies when the tool is appropriate, and it gives one real routing rule: document is required when more than one Revit instance is running. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling read tools.

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

Deploy Server