Skip to main content
Glama
tbrito88

Fusion360 Live MCP

by tbrito88
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Circular Pattern

circular_pattern

Create radial copies of a body or a selected feature around an axis. Pattern a hole to form a bolt circle, or duplicate a whole body for turntable-style arrangements.

Instructions

Pattern a body OR a feature around an axis. Without feature_name, this duplicates the whole body N times as separate overlapping bodies (correct for copying a whole part, e.g. around a turntable) — it does NOT add copies of a feature to the same body. For the common case — a bolt circle, repeating a single hole around one part — pass feature_name (the feature that created it, e.g. from create_hole's feature_name) so the result stays one body with N holes. Unless a parameter says otherwise, lengths and coordinates are in cm (not mm) and angles in degrees.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
axisNoz
countYes
body_nameYesBody to pattern. Still required even when feature_name is given, to resolve the axis; ignored as the pattern target in that case.
total_angleNoTotal angle to distribute copies over (degrees)
feature_nameNoName of an existing feature (e.g. a hole feature) to pattern instead of the whole body. This is what keeps the result as ONE body with N copies of the feature — a real bolt circle — instead of N separate overlapping bodies.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations already declaring it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, the description adds the crucial outcome distinction: without feature_name you get N separate overlapping bodies rather than copies of a feature in one body. It also adds a non-obvious units rule (cm not mm). It stops short of describing whether the source body/feature is preserved or what the call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded — the body-vs-feature distinction leads, and the units caveat closes. Slightly long relative to the operation, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information rather than restating the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-param mutation with no output schema and no annotations on safety nuance, the description covers the mode selection and units cleanly. It leaves minor ambiguity — whether the original counts toward 'N times' and whether the source geometry is consumed — but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60%, and the description compensates well: it explains the interaction between feature_name and body_name (body_name stays required only to resolve the axis) and pins down units for lengths, coordinates, and angles. It leaves 'count' and 'total_angle' semantics to the schema, which documents them adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pattern a body OR a feature around an axis') and immediately disambiguates the two modes. An agent can distinguish this from rectangular_pattern and mirror without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to omit feature_name (turntable-style whole-part copy) versus when to pass it (bolt circle, repeated hole), and names the sibling create_hole as the source of feature_name. Both branches of the decision are spelled out with examples.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools