Lists all features in the active Inventor part and returns them as a JSON list, so you can inspect feature order and names before editing or building parametric models.
List all features in the active part. 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'Returns JSON list'. It does not disclose whether suppressed features are included, what a feature entry contains, or whether an error occurs when no part is active — all relevant for a tool acting on 'the active part'.
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 scope stated first; no wasted text. 'Returns JSON list' is marginally redundant given an output schema exists, keeping it just below the top score.
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 simple read-only list tool with a documented schema and an output schema covering return values, the description is minimally sufficient. It still leaves open the 'active part' precondition and suppressed-feature inclusion, which an agent would want before calling.
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 'instance' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_instances. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the 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+resource ('List all features') and scopes it to 'the active part', which distinguishes it from document-level siblings like list_documents or list_instances. It does not explicitly contrast with adjacent read tools such as list_faces, list_edges, or get_parameters, but the resource noun 'features' is itself differentiating.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_parameters for parameter data, list_occurrences for assembly components), and no stated prerequisites such as needing an open part document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.