Fusion360 MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't explain what 'pattern' entails (e.g., creating copies, modifying geometry), potential side effects, or performance considerations. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds minimal value, scoring a baseline 3.

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 that front-loads the core action ('pattern a body'). It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more specific (e.g., 'Create copies of a body arranged in a circle around an axis') to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 tool with 4 parameters, low schema coverage (25%), no output schema, and no annotations explaining behavior, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, how it interacts with geometry, or error conditions, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 low at 25%, with only 'total_angle' having a description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, failing to explain 'body_name' (what body to pattern), 'count' (number of copies), or 'axis' (rotation axis). Given the coverage gap, the description doesn't compensate, resulting in a baseline 3 due to inadequate parameter clarification.

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 states the action ('pattern a body') and resource ('around an axis'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'pattern' means (creating copies in a circular arrangement) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'rectangular_pattern' or 'mirror', which also create patterns but with different geometries.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rectangular_pattern' or 'mirror'. The description implies usage for circular arrangements but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing body) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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