Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fusion-mcp

fusion-mcp

by hellstein-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

body_rename

Renames a body in a Fusion 360 model, not a timeline feature. Returns the new name and previous name, erroring on empty names or non-body references.

Instructions

Rename a body (not a timeline feature).

Returns {"body": {ref, type, name}, "previous_name": str}.

Errors: an empty name, a non-body ref -> INVALID_PARAMS.

Example: body_rename(body=, name="Lid")

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": "<body>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "body_rename"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesBody ref
nameYesNew name (trimmed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares the exact return payload ({"body": {ref, type, name}, "previous_name": str}) and the failure modes (empty name, non-body ref -> INVALID_PARAMS). It omits whether renaming affects downstream references or is reversible, which would matter for a mutation.

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?

The core constraint is front-loaded in the first line, followed by return shape, error modes, and one compact example. Every line earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and error contract that structured fields would otherwise provide. Only side-effect scope (impact on dependent features/references) is left unstated.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema ('Body ref', 'New name (trimmed)'). The description's example confirms the parameter shape but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so 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 immediately scopes it with '(not a timeline feature)', which separates it from the sibling timeline_rename. An agent can pick this tool without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The parenthetical exclusion implicitly routes timeline feature renaming to timeline_rename, giving the agent a clear decision boundary. It stops short of naming that sibling outright or describing prerequisites (e.g. body must exist in the active design).

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