Retrieves current Autodesk Fusion user parameters and compares them with a dataclass model, revealing parameter differences for CAD build and validation workflows.
User parameters и diff с dataclass модели.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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 word 'diff' weakly suggests a comparison behavior, but the description adds no real context about side effects, scoping, or what the diff is against beyond what annotations supply, so it stays near baseline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is short, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than economical structure. The single fragment is not front-loaded with a clear purpose and mixes two concepts without explaining either.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with an undocumented parameter, no output schema, and a crowded sibling set, this description leaves out almost everything an agent needs: what user parameters are retrieved, what the diff compares, and when to choose this over params_set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is a single parameter ('model') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only vaguely alludes to a 'dataclass модели'. It does not explain what value the model parameter takes, whether it is optional, or how it affects the result, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a near-tautology that largely restates the name: 'User parameters и diff с dataclass модели' hints at reading user parameters and a diff against a dataclass model, but it never states a clear verb+resource or distinguishes itself from the sibling params_set. An agent cannot confidently tell what this returns or how it differs from params_set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling params_set as the write counterpart, and no preconditions. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.