get_design_typeCheck whether a Fusion 360 design is in parametric or direct mode to detect accidental mode switches before edits.
Check if the design is in parametric or direct mode. Use this to detect accidental mode switches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the two possible modes returned and the diagnostic purpose, which is more than the annotations convey.
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 sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the recommended use case.
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?
With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of indicating the return value and it names the two modes (parametric/direct), which is sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool. Nothing needed 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool needs no input to resolve the mode.
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 states a specific check ('is the design in parametric or direct mode') with a clear verb and resource, which distinguishes it from the sibling set_design_type. It is slightly terse but unambiguous about what is being read.
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?
It gives one concrete usage scenario ('detect accidental mode switches'), which implies when to call it, but never names set_design_type as the counterpart or states when not to call it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.