revit_selectSelect Revit elements by ID for inspection in a chosen open document; pass an empty list to clear the selection.
Select element IDs for inspection in Revit; an empty list clears the selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | No | Title or file name substring of the target open document; needed when several are open. | |
| element_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / document / descriptionPrevious 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."Input schema / properties / document / titleRemoved value: -"Document"Input schema / properties / element_ids / titleRemoved value: -"Element Ids"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"revit_selectArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"revit_selectDictOutput"v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, telling the agent this mutates UI state safely and repeatably. The description usefully adds the edge case that an empty list clears the selection, but it does not clarify whether a non-empty list replaces or appends to the existing selection — a real behavioral ambiguity for a selection tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the action and the key edge case both land immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 params, one required), an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action and the clear-on-empty edge case. The only material gap is the replace-vs-append question for the selection set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: the 'document' parameter is documented in the schema, while 'element_ids' is not. The description compensates by explaining the empty-list semantics of element_ids, which is meaningful added value, but says nothing about the document parameter or the integer IDs' expected form. Baseline 3 for a partially covered schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('element IDs') plus the purpose ('for inspection in Revit'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from related UI siblings like revit_show or revit_isolate, which an agent might otherwise consider for the same 'make elements visible' intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for inspection in Revit' implies the context of use (visual/UI inspection), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. revit_isolate). Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.