Revit Model MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

View Info

revit_view_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect one Revit view's template, display settings, categories, worksets, filters, and links to audit visibility and verify view configuration.

Instructions

Inspect one view's template, display, categories, worksets, filters and links.

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
`view`	Yes	Required exact, case-sensitive non-template view name from revit_list_views, or its Revit view ID as a decimal string; no default. An exact name takes precedence over interpreting a numeric string as an ID.
`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.

Addedv0.7.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the multi-instance rule that document becomes required, and that a non-empty 'skipped' means the answer is incomplete with skippedCount truncating beyond 100 entries. It does not mention permission or error behavior on an invalid view name.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the operational caveats follow. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description still adds the truncation/'skipped' incompleteness signal plus the multi-instance rule. What remains uncovered is the failure mode for a missing or ambiguous view name, which is only partially implied by the schema.

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 the schema already documents view, document, process_id, and both timeout parameters in detail. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or precedence (e.g. name-vs-ID precedence, process_id over document) beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (one view) and enumerates the aspects returned — template, display, categories, worksets, filters, links — which distinguishes it from revit_view_summary or revit_view_elements by content. However, it never names an alternative sibling or states a scope boundary explicitly, so differentiation must be inferred from the field list.

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?

The description gives operational context (document required when multiple Revit instances run) but never says when to pick this tool over revit_view_summary, revit_list_views, or revit_view_elements. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server