Revit Model MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check Revit Connection

revit_ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify connectivity to a running Revit instance without reading the model. Returns 'pong' when reachable, or an error on timeouts.

Instructions

Check the RevitModelMcp connection without reading the model.

Returns a response with data="pong", even when no document is active. Connection failures and timeouts raise errors; no partial result is returned.

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.
`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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.0Sep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / document / description

Previous 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."New value: +"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."

addedInput schema / properties / process_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Exact positive Revit process ID. Takes precedence over document; if both are supplied they must agree.",
+  "title": "Process Id"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 15, 2026

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 / 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."

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior beyond them: it returns data='pong' even with no document, failures and timeouts raise errors with no partial result, and it warns that a non-empty 'skipped' means an incomplete answer. The skipped/skippedCount sentence is somewhat cryptic, which keeps this from a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the multi-instance rule is placed clearly. The trailing sentence about 'skipped'/'skippedCount' and the 100-entry limit is terse and its relevance to a ping is unclear, so it dilutes rather than earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to add scope and failure semantics, which it does (pong response, error-on-failure, no partial results, multi-instance requirement). The ambiguous skipped/skippedCount note is the only notable gap.

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 (document, process_id, timeout_seconds, pickup_timeout_seconds) are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only reinforces the document-when-multiple-instances rule already present in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check the RevitModelMcp connection') and immediately scopes it against the rest of the family with 'without reading the model', which separates it from the many read-oriented siblings such as revit_document_info and revit_model_snapshot. An agent can select this as a pure connectivity probe without opening any schema.

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 states a clear usage condition: when more than one Revit instance is running, a document must be supplied; otherwise any instance may answer, and it works even with no active document. That is actionable context, but it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. revit_list_instances) or says when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server