Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fusion360 MCP Server

Fusion360 MCP Server

by forgemorrow
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Rename Body

rename_body
Idempotent

Change the name of a CAD body by providing its current name and new name; searches root and all components to find it.

Instructions

Rename a body (searches root and all components)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body_name": "<body_name>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_body"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_nameYesNew name for the body
body_nameYesCurrent body name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the search spans root and all components, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about what happens on a name collision or if the body is not found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the scoping caveat with no wasted words. Ideal size for a two-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple rename tool with full parameter documentation and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. The only gaps are error/edge-case behavior (missing body, duplicate names), which are minor and predictable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two self-explanatory string parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or uniqueness constraints beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a body') and adds the search scope, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like move_body, scale_body, and split_body that also act on bodies. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and description — rename a body when you want to change its name — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is guiding either.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools