Remove a timeline group while keeping all its members in the Fusion 360 timeline. Use it to dissolve grouping without deleting features and return member items, marker position, and count.
Remove a timeline group but keep its members in the timeline.
Returns {"members": [item], "marker_position", "count"}.
Example: timeline_ungroup(group="timeline:Base").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | Yes | Group ref 'timeline:<name>' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the non-obvious behavioral effect (members survive the ungrouping) plus the concrete return payload {members, marker_position, count}. Missing are failure modes and whether the removal is reversible, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the effect, then the return shape, then a concrete invocation example. Nothing is wasted and each sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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?
One required parameter, no output schema, no annotations — the description covers what the tool does, what it preserves and what it returns, which is nearly everything needed to call it. Only error/edge-case behavior (nonexistent group, idempotency) is left out.
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% and the single 'group' parameter is already documented as "Group ref 'timeline:<name>'"; the example mirrors that exact syntax rather than extending it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.
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 and resource (remove a timeline group) plus the crucial scope qualifier 'but keep its members in the timeline', which separates it functionally from timeline_delete and the other timeline_* siblings. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the behavior is unambiguous.
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: the preservation clause suggests when this is preferable to deleting features, but there is no explicit 'use this when / don't use this when' guidance and no prerequisites (e.g. group must exist, must be a 'timeline:<name>' ref) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.