Inspect a Fusion 360 body by name or index to retrieve its operative ID, component, topology counts, volume, visibility, and bounding box.
Inspect one body by index or name, including its current operative ID, component, topology counts, volume, visibility, and bounding box.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the fields returned by the inspection, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what the tool reveals. It stops short of describing edge cases or exact return formatting, but is strong for a read-only query.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then the selection method, then the concrete content of the inspection. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.
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 one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: what to pass and what will be returned. It gives the returned field categories explicitly. It could be more complete by noting exact output structure or failure behavior, but the current definition is sufficient for correct usage in most cases.
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?
The schema only describes 'body' as an integer or string, with 0% coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter can be an index or a name, mapping the two schema types to meaningful selection modes. It could add detail such as index base or name resolution rules, but the core semantics are clearly conveyed.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Inspect one body') and a resource with selection scope ('by index or name'), then lists the exact data returned: operative ID, component, topology counts, volume, visibility, and bounding box. This distinguishes it from siblings like fusion_get_body, fusion_bounding_box, and fusion_physical_properties without ambiguity.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fusion_get_body, fusion_bounding_box, or fusion_physical_properties. There are no stated exclusions or conditions, so an agent must infer when this aggregate inspection tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.