Retrieves all parameters of the active Autodesk Inventor document as a JSON list, so you can inspect model dimensions and constraints before editing or automating changes.
Get all parameters of the active document. Returns JSON list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance | No | Which connected Inventor to use (list_instances). Leave empty when only one is connected. |
| 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. 'Get' plus 'Returns JSON list' establishes it as a read with a list result, but it does not say whether model, user, and reference parameters are all included, what an empty document returns, or the ordering.
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 with the resource and the return shape front-loaded; nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be re-read.
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 and the one optional parameter is fully documented, so the description need not explain return values or instance semantics. Only a note on which parameter types are returned would make it fully complete.
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 100% and the single optional 'instance' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about multi-instance selection, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Get all parameters of the active document') and the return shape. It is distinguishable from the mutation siblings add_parameter and set_parameter, though it never names them.
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 'active document' implies scope, which indirectly points at activate_document, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of set_parameter or add_parameter as the write alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.