Lists connected Autodesk Inventor instances with names, projects, and open documents, including manually opened instances not reachable by the server, even while busy.
The Inventors this server is connected to — name, project, open documents — and any other running Inventor it can't reach (opened by hand). Answers even while they are busy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses useful behavior: it returns instances even when they are busy, and it includes manually opened Inventors the server cannot reach. It does not explicitly state safety or error behavior, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by listing instances.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and supplemented by the key busy/unreachable behavior. There is no wasted text.
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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains scope and the busy-instance behavior. It could improve by explicitly naming when to choose it over sibling discovery tools.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there are none.
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 resource: Inventor application instances connected to the server, including manually opened ones it cannot reach. It distinguishes this from document-focused siblings like list_documents, though it never uses an explicit verb such as "list".
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?
Usage is implied: an agent would call this to discover connected or unreachable Inventor instances. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives among siblings such as status or list_documents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.