fetch_api_docLook up official Autodesk API documentation for Fusion 360 classes and members, and check preview status to determine if a feature is production-ready.
Look up official Autodesk API docs and report preview status. Examples: Rendering, DrawingManager.createDrawing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Class or Class.member | |
| timeout | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the minor behavioral detail that it 'reports preview status,' but does not explain what that status contains, error behavior, network effects, or other operational traits. It does not contradict 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?
The description is one concise sentence with two illustrative examples. There is no redundant wording; the verb, resource, and examples are front-loaded and every part 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 simple read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential 'what' and examples, but 'report preview status' is vague about the actual return value. Timeout semantics are also left undocumented, so an agent may not know how to use or interpret the full invocation correctly.
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 name parameter has a schema description ('Class or Class.member') and the description reinforces it with examples like Rendering and DrawingManager.createDrawing. However, the timeout parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving its units and effect unclear. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.
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 and resource: 'Look up official Autodesk API docs and report preview status.' It also provides concrete examples that distinguish it from the many CAD-operation siblings. The purpose is immediately apparent.
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 intended usage is clear: when an agent needs official Autodesk API documentation or preview status for a class or member. No alternatives are mentioned, but none of the sibling tools serve a documentation-lookup role, so exclusion guidance is not necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.