Returns a log of executed blocks so you can review prior CAD modeling actions and verify results in Autodesk Fusion.
Журнал выполненных блоков execute.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "script"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 by structured data. The description adds the useful fact that this exposes the history of executed 'execute' blocks, but says nothing about log scope, ordering, retention, or whether it is per-session.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler or repetition, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than being optimally sized for the tool's role.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, yet it never describes the log's contents, format, or granularity. For a history/journal tool this leaves the agent guessing about what a call actually yields.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify, and it does not attempt to invent filters that do not exist.
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 phrase 'Журнал выполненных блоков execute' identifies a resource (a journal/log of executed execute blocks), which is more than a tautology of the name 'script'. However, it never states the action (retrieve/read) explicitly and gives no hint of how it differs from siblings like job_status, last_error, or session_state, which similarly expose execution history.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as job_status or last_error that an agent would plausibly confuse with an execution log. The agent must infer usage purely from the noun phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.