get_scene_infoRetrieve design name, bodies, sketches, features, and camera info from your current Fusion 360 scene to understand the model state and support design automation.
Get design name, bodies, sketches, features, camera info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat these. However, it adds value by specifying the types of scene information retrieved (e.g., design name, camera info), which provides useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.
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, efficient phrase that lists all retrieved information without any redundant words. It is front-loaded and every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it 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 tool has 0 parameters, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and no output schema, the description adequately covers what information is retrieved. However, it lacks details on the format or structure of the returned data, which could be helpful for an agent to interpret results, leaving room for improvement.
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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not need to cover parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the output information, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary parameter details.
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 action ('Get') and the specific information retrieved ('design name, bodies, sketches, features, camera info'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_object_info' or 'get_parameters', which limits the score to 4 instead of 5.
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 such as 'get_object_info' or 'get_parameters', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It merely lists what information is retrieved without indicating appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.