Renga–Codex Bridge

by ucrdaniel

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

bridge_export_ifc

Export IFC4 models from Renga to a protected output path via the Renga API, enabling safe BIM file sharing or archival.

Instructions

Export IFC4 using Renga API to a new protected output path.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "output": "<output>"
    },
    "name": "bridge_export_ifc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`output`	Yes
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that output is 'protected' but does not say whether the path is overwritten, whether it must not already exist, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. Mutation/export side effects are essentially undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is the right shape. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness is part of why other dimensions fall short.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter export operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves too many gaps: return value, overwrite behavior, and both parameter meanings are unspecified. A caller could not reliably invoke this without trial and error.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: 'output' is only loosely glossed as a 'protected output path' with no format or directory semantics, and 'project' is never explained at all (identifier? path? name?).

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?

Names a specific verb (export) and resource (IFC4) and identifies the underlying mechanism (Renga API), so the agent knows this produces an IFC file rather than the PDF output of the sibling bridge_export_pdf. It stops short of describing how the result differs from other bridge_* operations, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to choose this export over bridge_export_pdf, bridge_render_view, or bridge_save_as, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g. whether a project must be open first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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