Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fusion360 Live MCP

Fusion360 Live MCP

by tbrito88
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Set Design Type

set_design_type
Idempotent

Switch a Fusion 360 design between parametric and direct design types. Use parametric to recover from accidental direct-mode switches.

Instructions

Switch design type between 'parametric' and 'direct'. Use 'parametric' to recover from accidental direct-mode switches (equivalent to Capture Design History in the UI).

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": {
      "design_type": "<design_type>"
    },
    "name": "set_design_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
design_typeYesTarget design type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent write semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful UI equivalence and recovery framing, but omits what actually happens to existing features/history when the mode flips, which is the main behavioral concern for this operation.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the mode values front-loaded ahead of the recovery guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a single required parameter with a fully covered schema and annotations, but for a state-changing mode switch the description never states the consequence of switching modes or points to get_design_type for inspection, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 100% with an enum and a 'Target design type' description, so the schema already carries the parameter. The description adds meaning to the 'parametric' value only, leaving 'direct' undefined, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 (switch) and resource (design type), enumerating the two valid target values. It is instantly distinguishable from the sibling get_design_type since one reads and one writes the mode.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete when-to-use scenario for 'parametric' (recovering from accidental direct-mode switches) and maps it to the UI concept 'Capture Design History'. It stops short of saying when 'direct' is the right choice or explicitly naming get_design_type as the read counterpart.

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