fusion-mcp-server
Related Servers
Alternatives to fusion-mcp-server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseCqualityCmaintenanceEnables MCP-compatible assistants to control Autodesk Fusion for mechanical modeling, assembly editing, CAM workflows, inspection, and model export through Fusion's native MCP endpoint.391MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceEnables any MCP client to drive Autodesk Fusion 360 locally, with ~100 tools for modeling, assemblies, CAM, inspection, and verification, plus enhanced component targeting and explicit thread creation.1081MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables LLM agents to build and modify parametric 3D models in Autodesk Fusion 360 through sketches, solid features, construction geometry, inspection tools, and in-Fusion Python execution. It connects MCP clients to a local Fusion add-in with status checks, error reporting, and unit-aware operations.154MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables MCP-compatible coding agents to inspect and automate Autodesk Fusion designs through a local add-in, with whole-task approval, recovery checkpoints, undoable transactions, and geometry validation.Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to inspect and automate Autodesk Fusion 360 through MCP, providing tools for CAD modeling, CAM manufacturing, and document management.-
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables controlling Autodesk Fusion 360 from any MCP-compatible AI client through natural language. Exposes tools for creating sketches, drawing rectangles and circles, extruding, revolving, filleting, shelling, drilling holes and bolt-circle patterns, managing user parameters, and exporting STEP/STL files, plus batch generation of parametric variants.15MIT
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool has a distinct action-object pairing: design summary, job polling, parameter listing, parameter mutation, and export initiation. The only mild overlap is get_design_info (which reports a count of user parameters) versus list_parameters, but the descriptions make the boundary clear.
All five tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, set_*, start_*). The get_job/start_export pairing is named predictably enough that the async relationship is obvious.
Five tools is well within the sweet spot and each one supports the narrow workflow of inspect design, read/adjust parameters, then export. Nothing feels redundant or padded.
The core lifecycle (inspect -> list parameters -> set parameter -> export -> poll job) is fully covered with no dead ends. Minor gaps exist: no create/delete parameter, no job cancellation or job listing, and no way to drill into individual components/bodies beyond counts.