Retrieve exact nested occurrence paths, component definitions, repeated-instance counts, and external-link flags for a Fusion document to analyze assembly structure and identify component relationships.
Read exact nested occurrence paths, component definitions, repeated-instance counts and external-link flags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| document_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Read' clearly implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, error conditions, or any side effects beyond being a read. It is helpful but minimal.
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?
One single, direct sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key outputs with no filler or redundant words. It earns its place and is easy to scan.
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?
The description names the primary return content but not the overall shape, pagination implications, or how limit/offset affect the tree. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the one-liner leaves important operational details unstated, though it covers the semantic core.
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 input schema has 0% property description coverage, and the description does not explain document_id, limit, or offset. It only describes the assembly-tree semantics of the read, leaving the agent to guess how paging and document selection interact with the returned tree.
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 clearly identifies the tool as read-oriented and names exact outputs: nested occurrence paths, component definitions, repeated-instance counts, and external-link flags. This separates it from siblings like fusion_bom or fusion_model_overview in intent, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as fusion_assembly or fusion_bom, nor are there any listed exclusions, prerequisites, or alternate conditions. The agent must infer when this is the correct read tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.