List every component in the current Fusion 360 design with its body count, giving a clear overview of assembly structure.
List all components in the design with their body counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns body counts, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations (e.g., whether it includes nested components).
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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and result. It contains no unnecessary words and 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?
Given no output schema, the description only mentions 'body counts' without specifying the structure (e.g., list of component names with counts, hierarchical status). This leaves some ambiguity about the return format, making it moderately complete.
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?
With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details per the baseline rule (0 params = baseline 4). The description focuses on the output, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.
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 clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'components', and the specific information 'with their body counts'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fusion_list_bodies (which list bodies, not components with counts) and other list tools.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to similar list tools like fusion_list_occurrences or fusion_list_features, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.