Revit Model MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check Revit Connection

revit_ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check connectivity to Revit Model MCP without reading the model. Returns a pong response even when no document is active, confirming the server is reachable.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`document`	No	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.
`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.

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that failures and timeouts raise errors, no partial result is returned, and multiple running instances may respond unless a document is specified. This is strong behavioral detail.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose comes first, then return value, then error behavior, then the multi-instance caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a ping tool, the description covers all essential contexts: no active document, multiple instances, timeout/error behavior, and the expected response. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with each parameter already documented in detail. The description's multi-instance note about 'document is required' reinforces the document parameter's schema description but does not add new parameter-level meaning. A baseline of 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 clearly identifies a specific action: checking the RevitModelMcp connection without reading the model. It states the return value ('data="pong"') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that read or aggregate model data. No ambiguity about the resource or operation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it works even when no document is active and explains the document requirement when multiple Revit instances are running. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the health-check role is unambiguous and the multi-instance note adds actionable guidance.

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

Deploy Server