Starts exporting the active Fusion design to STEP, STL, or F3D and returns a job ID immediately; poll get_job until the export finishes.
Start exporting the active design to STEP, STL or F3D. Returns a job id immediately; poll get_job until it completes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Destination file path on the machine running Fusion | |
| format | Yes | Output format |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly adds the non-obvious async behavior: it 'returns a job id immediately' and requires polling. It omits edge behavior such as whether an existing file at path is overwritten, which matters for a write operation.
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?
Two compact sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the async follow-up is stated second, which matches the order an agent needs it.
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?
With annotations, a full-coverage schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential async contract. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (overwrite behavior, invalid path, unsupported design state) that would help an agent handle errors.
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 coverage is 100%, with both path and format documented and the format enum spelled out in the schema, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating the formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Names a specific verb ('start exporting'), the exact resource ('the active design'), and the supported formats (STEP, STL, F3D). An agent can immediately tell this begins an export job rather than retrieving design data like the get_design_info sibling.
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?
Explicitly states the follow-up workflow: 'poll get_job until it completes', naming the relevant sibling and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use cases (e.g., unsupported formats or already-running exports), so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.