mcp-servers-for-revit

Provides an MCP server (TypeScript) and a Revit add-in (C#) that bridge MCP tool calls from AI clients into Revit actions (read, create, modify, delete elements; also supports exporting/storing some project data).

Evaluated Mar 30, 2026 (22d ago)
Homepage ↗ Repo ↗ Ai Ml mcp revit autodesk bim ai-integration automation websocket typescript csharp stdio
⚙ Agent Friendliness
56
/ 100
Can an agent use this?
🔒 Security
28
/ 100
Is it safe for agents?
⚡ Reliability
30
/ 100
Does it work consistently?

Score Breakdown

⚙ Agent Friendliness

MCP Quality
55
Documentation
70
Error Messages
0
Auth Simplicity
95
Rate Limits
10

🔒 Security

TLS Enforcement
20
Auth Strength
15
Scope Granularity
10
Dep. Hygiene
45
Secret Handling
60

No authentication/authorization is documented for tool execution. Communication includes a WebSocket bridge (transport security unspecified). The npm publishing mentions trusted publishing (OIDC) but does not provide runtime security guarantees. Given the nature of Revit document modification, treating tool calls as high-privilege is important; validate/guard destructive operations when integrating with autonomous agents.

⚡ Reliability

Uptime/SLA
0
Version Stability
55
Breaking Changes
35
Error Recovery
30
AF Security Reliability

Best When

Used locally on a workstation where Revit is installed, with the MCP client configured for stdio and the plugin running inside Revit.

Avoid When

Avoid exposing the WebSocket bridge externally or running in environments where untrusted MCP clients/tools might issue destructive operations without safeguards.

Use Cases

  • AI-assisted model exploration (view info, elements in active view, selected elements)
  • Automated drafting/modification in Revit (create elements, grid/levels/rooms/dimensions)
  • Bulk tagging and lightweight analytics (tag walls/rooms, analyze model statistics)
  • Material takeoff/quantities calculations
  • Pipeline integration where a user wants MCP-driven Revit operations from an AI desktop/client

Not For

  • Multi-tenant or internet-exposed services requiring robust network security per tenant
  • Security-sensitive environments that require authentication/authorization controls beyond local execution
  • Use in production without validating tool schemas, permissions, and reversible workflows (e.g., deletion/creation)

Interface

REST API
No
GraphQL
No
gRPC
No
MCP Server
Yes
SDK
No
Webhooks
No

Authentication

Methods: None described explicitly for MCP server startup/config (stdio command execution) No authentication/authorization mechanisms described for the WebSocket bridge or Revit plugin tools
OAuth: No Scopes: No

The README describes local running via npx/stdio and a WebSocket bridge inside Revit, but does not document any authN/authZ, scopes, or access control.

Pricing

Free tier: No
Requires CC: No

Open-source (MIT) per README/metadata; pricing not applicable.

Agent Metadata

Pagination
none
Idempotent
False
Retry Guidance
Not documented

Known Gotchas

  • Some tools appear potentially destructive (e.g., delete_element). Agents should confirm intent and potentially use a safe/undo workflow.
  • Operations depend on Revit being installed/licensed and the plugin running inside Revit; tool calls may fail if no active view/document context is available.
  • The bridge uses WebSocket between MCP server and Revit plugin; behavior may depend on local process timing and connection readiness.

Alternatives

Full Evaluation Report

Comprehensive deep-dive: security analysis, reliability audit, agent experience review, cost modeling, competitive positioning, and improvement roadmap for mcp-servers-for-revit.

AI-powered analysis · PDF + markdown · Delivered within 30 minutes

$99

Package Brief

Quick verdict, integration guide, cost projections, gotchas with workarounds, and alternatives comparison.

Delivered within 10 minutes

$3

Score Monitoring

Get alerted when this package's AF, security, or reliability scores change significantly. Stay ahead of regressions.

Continuous monitoring

$3/mo

Scores are editorial opinions as of 2026-03-30.

8642
Packages Evaluated
17761
Need Evaluation
586
Need Re-evaluation
Community Powered