Batch delete part types from Binner by numeric ID or name to remove obsolete inventory classifications.
Batch delete part types by ID or name.
Args: part_type_ids: Numeric part type IDs to delete. names: Part type names to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | No | ||
| part_type_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that deletion is irreversible, not whether part types referenced by existing parts/BOMs can be deleted, not required permissions, and not what happens if both keys or neither key are supplied (both parameters are nullable with no required fields).
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?
One front-loaded sentence stating verb, resource and scope, followed by a compact argument list. Nothing is padded, though the Args block largely restates schema field names rather than adding information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive batch operation with zero annotation coverage the description is incomplete: no irreversibility warning, no dependency/constraint information, and no error behavior for invalid or partially matching IDs.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add brief meaning for both parameters ('Numeric part type IDs' vs 'Part type names'). However, it omits critical semantics: whether the two are mutually exclusive, whether one must be supplied, and how conflicts between a matching ID and name are resolved.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Batch delete part types') plus the two lookup keys ('by ID or name'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling delete_parts and delete_projects by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as delete_parts for removing part instances rather than type definitions. The agent must infer everything about selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.