List all component occurrences in a Fusion 360 design, showing name, grounded state, visibility, and body count for assembly overview.
List component occurrences: name, grounded, visible, body count.
| 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 openWorldHint=true. The description adds minor context about the fields returned, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no extraneous words. Highly concise and well-structured.
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 the simplicity of a no-parameter list tool, the description is adequate but could be more complete by specifying the scope (e.g., current design or assembly). Lacks details about return format or any constraints.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description does not need to provide parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description offers no further parameter info.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'component occurrences', and lists the included fields (name, grounded, visible, body count), making it specific and distinct from sibling 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other list tools (e.g., fusion_list_components, fusion_list_bodies). Usage is implied only by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.