Looks up real Fusion API classes and members or finds them by keyword, so you can confirm exact names and signatures before writing fusion_run code.
Look up the real Fusion API. Pass an exact class name (e.g. 'ExtrudeFeatureInput') to list its members with docs, or keywords (e.g. 'rectangular pattern') to find classes. Use this before writing fusion_run code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the return shape differs by query mode (member list with docs vs. class list), which the agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not mention result caps or how the 'limit' default of 60 interacts with output.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste: behavior first, then the call-to-action sequencing constraint. Front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the essential behavior and the when-to-use rule. Completeness is only slightly diminished by the undocumented 'limit' parameter and no hint of what happens when a query matches nothing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for the required 'query': exact class name vs. keywords, each with a concrete example. The optional 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, leaving a real 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('look up the real Fusion API') and explains the two result modes: class members with docs, or matching classes. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like fusion_run or fusion_inspect, which execute and inspect the model rather than fetch API documentation.
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?
Gives an explicit usage rule: 'Use this before writing fusion_run code.' That names the sibling it complements and the condition under which to call it, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.