fusion-cad-ai

by 5nail000

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

compare

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check differences between two shapes, fits, alignments, or snapshots to verify CAD geometry before or after changes.

Instructions

Сравнение shape, fit, align или snapshot.

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": {
      "a": "<a>"
    },
    "name": "compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`a`	Yes
`b`	No
`kind`	No	shape

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on cost, whether it requires both designs loaded, or what the comparison yields.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

A single short sentence that is under-specified rather than concise — it omits the object of comparison and any usage context, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

With 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only a terse one-liner, an agent lacks enough information to know what `a` and `b` should contain or how to interpret results. Annotations cover safety but nothing else.

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%, so the description carries the burden but only partially compensates: it effectively enumerates the `kind` values (shape, fit, align, snapshot), which the schema leaves as a bare string with default 'shape'. The required `a` and optional `b` parameters remain entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb ('Сравнение'/compare) and enumerates the comparison modes (shape, fit, align, snapshot), so the domain is discernible. However it never says what is being compared (parts? revisions? a vs b?), leaving the core subject ambiguous and not differentiated from siblings like measure or interference.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus measure, validate, interference, or other analysis siblings. The list of modes hints at scope but provides no selection criteria or prerequisites.

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