get_object_infoRetrieve detailed properties and geometry data for a named body or sketch in Fusion 360, enabling accurate inspection before modeling or automation.
Get detailed info about a named body or sketch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Object name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal context beyond this, specifying it retrieves 'detailed info' but not elaborating on what that includes or any limitations. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, idempotent) and lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource types ('body or sketch') but doesn't detail the return format or potential errors. For a basic info-retrieval tool with good annotations, it meets the minimum viable threshold.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Object name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Get detailed info') and resource ('about a named body or sketch'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_parameters', 'get_physical_properties', or 'get_scene_info', which also retrieve information but about different resources.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing object name, or compare it to siblings like 'get_physical_properties' for different types of object details. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.