Model MCP

by sharafutdinovdi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

Select Elements

revit_select

Read-onlyIdempotent

Selects element IDs in Revit for inspection; pass an empty list to clear the current selection.

Instructions

Select element IDs for inspection in Revit; an empty list clears the selection.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "element_ids": "<element_ids>"
    },
    "name": "revit_select"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.10.0Oct 14, 2026

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

removedOutput schema / title

Removed value: -"revit_selectDictOutput"

Addedv0.7.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description does add one genuinely non-obvious behavior — that an empty list clears the selection — which the schema never conveys. It still omits what happens with invalid IDs, whether selection is per-view or persistent, and whether a document must be active, so it is useful but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with two clauses, each carrying information: the primary action first, then the non-obvious edge case. No filler, no restatement 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage and a simple effect, the description is nearly sufficient — the empty-list semantics is the key call-out and it is present. A sentence on document defaulting (active document when omitted) or selection scoping across views would close the remaining 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 coverage is only 50%: document is documented in-schema, but element_ids has no description at all beyond type constraints (positive integers). The description compensates partially by clarifying that element_ids is a list whose empty value has special meaning (clearing the selection), but it says nothing about ID validity or how element_ids relates to the chosen document.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Select") with a specific resource ("element IDs") and adds the purpose ("for inspection in Revit"). An agent can tell this is a UI-selection tool rather than a query or mutation tool, though it never names how it differs from closely related siblings such as revit_show, revit_isolate, or revit_capture_elements.

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?

"For inspection" implies the intended usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives. Nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this instead of revit_isolate or revit_show when the goal is to highlight elements, so the choice is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server