Make an open Autodesk Inventor document the active one by specifying its display name or full path, so subsequent modeling actions target the correct file.
Make an open document the active one (by display name or full path).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance | No | Which connected Inventor to use (list_instances). Leave empty when only one is connected. | |
| name_or_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the precondition (document must be open) and the state change (it becomes the active one), but says nothing about failure modes, ambiguity resolution, or whether the switch affects subsequent tool calls — significant gaps for a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the effect first and the accepted input forms parenthetically. No filler, nothing redundant with the title or schema.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the tool mutates application state with no annotations and only one sentence of prose. An agent cannot tell what happens when the name is ambiguous, when the document is not open, or how this interacts with the 'instance' parameter.
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 coverage is 50%: 'instance' is documented in the schema, while 'name_or_path' has no schema description. The description partially compensates by explaining that the identifier can be a display name or a full path, which is genuine added meaning, but the instance parameter is never mentioned in the description.
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?
Specific verb ('Make ... active') on a specific resource ('an open document'), with the accepted identifier forms named. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_documents or save_document that also deal with open documents.
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 word 'open' implies the precondition that the document must already be loaded, so usage is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of using list_documents to discover valid names, and nothing about behavior when several documents match.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.