revit_showDisplay specified Revit elements and optionally select them, opening a level plan or 3D view when required.
Display elements in Revit, optionally selecting them; opens a level plan or 3D view when needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| select | No | ||
| 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 / properties / select / titleRemoved value: -"Select"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"revit_showArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"revit_showDictOutput"v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description usefully explains why it is not read-only (it opens a level plan or 3D view) but omits details such as what happens to the current selection or view focus.
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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and secondary behaviors trailing. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, with 3 parameters and low description coverage, the definition does not fully equip an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'document' is documented), so the description must compensate. It hints at the 'select' behavior but says nothing about element_ids format or the document parameter, leaving most parameters undocumented across both sources.
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 (display) plus resource (elements in Revit) and clarifies the optional selection behavior and the automatic view opening. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like revit_select or revit_isolate.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The agent is not told when to prefer this over revit_select, revit_isolate, or revit_view_elements, so routing must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.