Collapse or expand a timeline group in Fusion 360 to control display visibility without changing the model.
Collapse or expand a timeline group (display only).
Returns {"group": item + "is_collapsed", "marker_position", "count"}.
Example: timeline_set_group_collapsed(group="timeline:Base", collapsed=true).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | Yes | Group ref 'timeline:<name>' | |
| collapsed | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical non-obvious trait: the change is display-only and does not alter the model. It also enumerates the return fields, which compensates for the absent output schema. It says nothing about persistence across sessions or behavior on nested groups.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, followed by return shape and one compact example - three short lines with little waste. The return-shape sentence could arguably be trimmed given it repeats field names, but the example earns its place.
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?
For a 2-required-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, side-effect scope, return fields, and a concrete call example. Minor gaps remain around nesting behavior and whether state persists, which are secondary for a view-only toggle.
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 50%, so the description must compensate; the example 'timeline:Base' clarifies the 'timeline:<name>' ref syntax and the boolean semantics of 'collapsed' are self-evident from the name. It adds only modest value beyond the schema's own parameter description.
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?
States a specific verb (collapse/expand) and resource (timeline group), and the parenthetical '(display only)' usefully separates it from mutating siblings like timeline_create_group or timeline_ungroup. It doesn't name an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'display only' hints this is a view-state operation rather than a model edit, and the example shows the call shape. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to the sibling group tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.