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, and non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It implies geometric modification without specifying effects on adjacent faces or constraints, offering some value beyond annotations but not detailed behavioral traits.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of an output schema and moderate parameter coverage, the description is minimally complete but lacks details on return values or error conditions. It provides enough to infer basic usage but falls short of fully informing an agent about outcomes or edge cases.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the schema documents parameters well, including details like 'distance' direction and 'face_selection' options. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for adequate coverage without enhancing understanding.

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 states the action ('push/pull') and target ('faces of a body'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'extrude' or 'shell' which also modify geometry, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'extrude' or 'shell', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The description lacks context for appropriate application, relying solely on the tool name and parameters.

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