Fusion360 MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds context by specifying the scope ('within a setup'), which is not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, pagination) or any rate limits, though annotations cover safety aspects well.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and scope.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, read-only per annotations) but lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and scope but misses details like output format or error handling. With annotations providing safety context, it meets a baseline but could be more informative for agent use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies 'setup_name' is required to scope the listing but does not explain its format, constraints, or examples. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for low coverage without fully compensating.

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 'List operations within a setup' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('operations'), specifying the scope ('within a setup'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cam_list_setups' (which lists setups rather than operations) and 'cam_get_operation_info' (which gets details of a specific operation). However, it does not explicitly mention what 'operations' refer to (e.g., CAM machining operations), leaving some ambiguity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing setup), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'cam_get_operation_info' for detailed info or 'cam_list_setups' for listing setups. Usage is implied by the name and context but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.