Skip to main content
Glama

ScanBIM MCP

by io.scanbimlabs

acc_search_documents

Full-text search the ACC Docs module on a project for drawings, specs, submittals, and other documents matching a query string. Calls the APS Data Management v1 search endpoint scoped to a project. When to use: an agent needs to locate a spec section, a sheet, or a submittal by keyword (e.g. 'fireproofing', 'A-101', 'RFI 23'). When NOT to use: you already have the document URN/lineage — fetch it directly. You want the file contents — this returns metadata; download separately via Data Management. APS scopes: data:read account:read Rate limits: APS default ~50 req/min per app per endpoint; Model Derivative translation jobs ~60 req/min; OSS uploads size-limited per file to 100MB for direct upload, larger via resumable. Errors: 401 APS token expired/invalid — refresh; 403 scope or resource permission denied (Docs module access required); 404 project_id not found — check the ID (note: this endpoint re-prepends 'b.' so pass the UUID form); 429 rate limited — backoff and retry; 5xx APS upstream outage — retry with jitter. Side effects: READ-ONLY. Inserts a row into D1 usage_log. Idempotent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesFree-text search string. Matched against document names and attributes. URL-encoded automatically by the worker.
project_idYesACC project ID in 'b.<uuid>' or '<uuid>' form (the 'b.' prefix is stripped and re-prepended automatically for the Data Management API).
document_typeNoOptional document type filter forwarded as filter[type]. Common values: 'drawing', 'spec', 'submittal', 'rfi', 'photo'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / document_type / description
      Added value: +"Optional document type filter forwarded as filter[type]. Common values: 'drawing', 'spec', 'submittal', 'rfi', 'photo'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / document_type / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "spec"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
      Added value: +"ACC project ID in 'b.<uuid>' or '<uuid>' form (the 'b.' prefix is stripped and re-prepended automatically for the Data Management API)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "b.a4be0c34a-4a01-4b0e-9f1a-123456789abc"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Added value: +"Free-text search string. Matched against document names and attributes. URL-encoded automatically by the worker."
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "fireproofing detail"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only operation, side effects (D1 usage_log row insertion), idempotency, APS scopes (data:read, account:read), rate limits, and detailed error handling (401/403/404/429/5xx) including the 'b.' prefix behavior. This goes far beyond what structured fields would provide.

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 with clear sections: purpose, when to use, when not to use, scopes, rate limits, errors, and side effects. Information is front-loaded and most sentences earn their place. However, the rate limit section includes unrelated details about Model Derivative and OSS uploads, which adds noise and reduces conciseness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates comprehensively. It covers what the tool does, its boundaries, error handling, scopes, side effects, and even notes that it returns metadata. This is a complete picture for an agent to decide when to use and what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% with well-written descriptions and examples for all parameters. The description does add minor context (e.g., project_id 'b.' prefix handling, URL encoding), but the schema already covers these details. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Full-text search the ACC Docs module on a project for drawings, specs, submittals, and other documents matching a query string.' It names the resource (ACC Docs module), the endpoint, and the scope (project-level), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like acc_list_issues or acc_list_projects.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide concrete scenarios and exclusions. The description gives keyword examples ('fireproofing', 'A-101') and explicitly tells agents to fetch directly if they already have a URN, and to use Data Management for file contents. This clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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

All ScanBIM MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain with clear prefixes (acc_, xr_, get_) and each has a distinct purpose. The only potential confusion is between lumion_render and twinmotion_render, but descriptions clarify the aesthetic difference. Overall, tools are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow consistent patterns: acc_* for ACC operations, get_* for metadata retrieval, and xr_launch_*/xr_list_* for XR sessions. Minor deviations like list_models instead of get_models and render tools using software names as prefixes are readable and do not hinder pattern recognition.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range but justified by the server's broad scope covering ACC, model translation, clash detection, rendering, and XR. Some render tools are stubs and could be trimmed, but they are clearly marked as roadmap items.

Completeness3/5

The set covers upload→translate→view→clash-detect→create issues/RFIs workflows well, but lacks update/delete operations for issues and RFIs, and there is no full-detail retrieval for a single issue or RFI. These gaps can cause workflow dead ends for closeout and status changes.

Resources