Revit Model MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

View Warnings

revit_view_warnings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve warnings and element IDs affecting elements in a specified Revit view. Identify view-specific issues quickly, with severity flags and outside-view involvement for targeted troubleshooting.

Instructions

Read warnings involving elements present in a selected view.

Returns data with view and warnings containing text, severity and element IDs with presentOnView flags; no related warnings return warnings=[]. A warning may also involve elements outside the view. Use revit_view_summary to inspect view contents, or revit_list_warnings for model-wide warning groups. A missing document, unknown or unsupported view, read failure or timeout raises an error; partial data is not returned.

If more than one Revit instance is running, document is required; otherwise any instance may respond.

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; 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.

Changed4 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."

addedInput schema / properties / view / description

Added value: +"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."

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Given the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds value by explaining edge cases: 'no related warnings return warnings=[]', 'A warning may also involve elements outside the view', and the behavior of missing document or errors. It also mentions instance-specific behavior with multiple Revit instances, which is beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purposeaisublock. It is concise but covers important constraints and alternatives. It could be slightly more compact, but every sentence contributes necessary context.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema need not be explained, the description covers the semantics of the output (e.g., empty warnings list), error conditions, and multi-instance behavior. It is complete for an agent to know when to call it. Minor gaps like pagination or specific error messages are not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 all parameters. The description goes further by noting that the view name must be exact and case-sensitive, and that an exact name takes precedence over numeric ID interpretation. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which is valuable.

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 states the tool reads warnings for elements in a selected view, differentiating it from model-wide warning tools. It specifies the resource (view) and action (read warnings), and the output structure is hinted at. This is specific and distinct from siblings like revit_list_warnings and revit_view_summary.

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 explicitly mentions when to use alternatives: 'Use revit_view_summary to inspect view contents, or revit_list_warnings for model-wide warning groups.' This provides clear guidance, though it could be more explicit about when NOT to use this tool, but the context is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server