Poll CAM job status to verify toolpath validity and generation completion without blocking Fusion's main thread. Use document and job IDs; note jobs become unknown after restart.
Poll generation completion and toolpath validity without blocking Fusion's main thread. Jobs become unknown after a Fusion restart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| 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 present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful traits: the tool is non-blocking ('without blocking Fusion's main thread') and job state can become stale ('Jobs become unknown after a Fusion restart'). These go beyond what the schema or annotations reveal.
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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, the non-blocking behavior, and a key lifecycle caveat. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 gives enough to understand the tool's role and call it with the two required IDs, but it does not describe the return format, how to handle unknown jobs after restart, or how it relates to the CAM generation flow. Some inference is still required.
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%, and the description does not explicitly explain document_id or job_id. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory, and 'Jobs become unknown after a Fusion restart' adds a useful note about job_id validity beyond the raw schema.
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 action ('Poll generation completion and toolpath validity') and the resource (a Fusion CAM job). It is specific enough to convey the tool's role, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like fusion_cam_generate or fusion_operation_status.
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 phrase 'Poll generation completion' implies that the tool is meant to check the status of a CAM generation job, likely after calling a generation-related sibling. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or name a preferred sibling for other cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.