Fusion360 Live MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create Construction Axis

create_construction_axis

Create a construction axis in Fusion 360 using two points, plane intersection, a body edge, or a point perpendicular to geometry. Specify lengths/coordinates in cm and angles in degrees.

Instructions

Create a construction axis. Unless a parameter says otherwise, lengths and coordinates are in cm (not mm) and angles in degrees.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "create_construction_axis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	Yes
`body_name`	No	Body name (for edge method)
`plane_one`	No	First plane (for intersection)
`plane_two`	No	Second plane (for intersection)
`point_one`	No
`point_two`	No
`edge_index`	No	Edge index on the body

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful unit-convention context (cm not mm, degrees) but says nothing about failure modes or per-method behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and the unit caveat immediately after. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the unit note is valuable. However, the four-method enum with divergent parameters (body_name/edge_index vs plane_one/plane_two vs point_one/point_two) is left entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a modeling agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 57%, with method, point_one, and point_two lacking schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by stating the unit convention (cm, degrees), which is critical for the point coordinates, but adds nothing about method values.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a clear verb+resource: 'Create a construction axis.' This distinguishes it from sibling create_construction_plane by resource type, though it doesn't explain how the four methods differ from each other.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The agent isn't told which of the four methods to pick or under what conditions, and no sibling routing (e.g., plane vs axis) is offered.

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

Deploy Server