fusion-cad-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

resolve

Idempotent

Maps an Autodesk Fusion object name and selector to its attribute and entity token, enabling agents to target the correct CAD entity for inspection or geometry workflows.

Instructions

Селектор, атрибут и entityToken.

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": {
      "object_name": "<object_name>",
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	No
`selector`	Yes
`object_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond those structured fields. It does not explain what mutation or side effect occurs, what permissions may be needed, or what the tool returns.

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?

The text is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A single ambiguous noun phrase does not front-load a usable action or purpose.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a three-parameter tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It leaves the core operation, required inputs, and expected outcome unexplained.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three parameters, but it does not. It mentions selector, yet omits object_name and label entirely, and references 'attribute' and 'entityToken' which are not even schema parameters.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is only a terse noun list: 'Селектор, атрибут и entityToken' (Selector, attribute and entityToken). It gives no verb or clear operation, so an agent cannot confidently tell what 'resolve' actually does or how it differs from sibling tools like find_features or locate_defects.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. The description does not help an agent decide whether to call resolve instead of find_features, inspect_part, or any other sibling.

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