Fusion360 Live MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Body

delete_body

Destructive

Remove a named body from the model, searching root and all components. Use this instead of undo for API-created bodies, which may not sit on Fusion's UI undo stack.

Instructions

Delete one named body (searches root and all components). Use this instead of undo to remove a body: API-created features are not reliably on Fusion's UI undo stack.

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": {
      "body_name": "<body_name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_body"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body_name`	Yes	Body to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds non-obvious context: the destructive operation spans root and all components, and it explains why undo is not a substitute. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens on a name miss, but the annotation carries the core safety signal.

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 sentences, zero waste. The scope constraint is front-loaded before the alternative-tool guidance, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what is needed. It does not address behavior when the named body is absent or ambiguous across components, a minor gap given the 'searches root and all components' wording.

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?

Only one parameter (body_name) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description's 'one named body' reinforces the parameter's intent, and 'searches root and all components' hints at semantics, but no additional syntax or formatting guidance is provided beyond the baseline.

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 (delete) and resource (one named body) and clarifies scope: it searches the root and all components. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling delete_all, which removes everything.

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 names the alternative (undo) and gives the condition that selects this tool over it: API-created features are not reliably on Fusion's UI undo stack. This is a concrete when/when-not rule.

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

Deploy Server