Run any Autodesk Fusion UI command by id, or search ids and names to find the right command. Use it to trigger menu-click actions; dialog commands stay open until you finish them.
Run any of Fusion's ~3,000 UI commands by id (what a menu click does), or search ids/names with search.
Dialog commands stay open in Fusion until finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| search | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: dialog commands remain open until finished. It still does not explain what side effects a destructive command may have, whether actions can be undone, or what the caller should expect after execution.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted language. The primary execution behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful behavioral caveat.
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 destructive tool that can invoke roughly 3,000 arbitrary UI commands with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description is quite thin. It explains the core mechanic and one dialog behavior, but omits safety context, return expectations, and details about command discovery beyond the bare mention of `search`.
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 carries the burden. It does map both parameters to their roles: `id` identifies the command to run, and `search` searches ids/names. It does not specify id format, search matching behavior, or what happens when both parameters are supplied, so it compensates only partially.
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 states a specific verb and resource: run UI commands by id, or search ids/names. The 'what a menu click does' analogy clarifies the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from close siblings such as fusion_run, fusion_api, or fusion_inspect, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description implies two modes: execute by `id`, or use `search` when looking up command ids/names. That is useful guidance for choosing between the two parameters. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like fusion_run or fusion_api, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.