check_interferenceDetect collisions between selected components or bodies in Fusion 360 and report interference volumes in cm³, optionally counting touching faces as interference.
Detect collisions between components/bodies. Interference volumes in cm³.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component_names | Yes | Names of components to check | |
| include_coincident_faces | No | Count touching faces as interference |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information about the result (interference volumes reported in cm³), which matters since no output schema exists, though it says nothing about how results are structured (per-pair list vs. single boolean).
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The core action comes first and the return-unit note follows.
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 two-parameter, read-only geometry query with no output schema, the description covers the action, the units of the result, and the collision semantics implied by the name. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned result set, which is the only real gap.
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%, so both parameters (component_names, include_coincident_faces) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Detect collisions between components/bodies') and adds the output unit ('Interference volumes in cm³'), which clearly distinguishes it from measurement siblings like measure_distance or get_bounding_box. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., measure_distance, compare_meshes), no prerequisites, and no indication of when component selection is appropriate. The agent must infer the use case purely from the name and one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.