Binner MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_parts

Search and filter locally hosted Binner inventory parts by query, category, bin, location, package, manufacturer, or low stock, and return selected fields with pagination and sorting.

Instructions

Search and filter parts. Returns (id, part_number) unless extra fields are requested.

Args: query: Search keyword across part numbers and descriptions. part_type: Filter by category name or path. bin_number: Filter by storage bin. location: Filter by room or cabinet. package_type: Filter by footprint/package (e.g. '0805', 'SOIC-8'). manufacturer: Filter by manufacturer name. low_stock_only: Return only parts at or below threshold. fields: Extra fields to return (e.g. ['quantity', 'location', 'bin_number']). page: Page number (1-based). limit: Max results per page (1-500). sort_by: Column to sort by (default 'DateCreatedUtc'). direction: 'Ascending' or 'Descending'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`fields`	No
`sort_by`	No	DateCreatedUtc
`location`	No
`direction`	No	Descending
`part_type`	No
`bin_number`	No
`manufacturer`	No
`package_type`	No
`low_stock_only`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default return fields and that extra fields require the 'fields' param, but does not cover pagination behavior (despite page/limit params), permissions, rate limits, or mutation risk. An output schema exists, so return value detail is less critical, but behavioral context remains thin.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. Each line earns its place by clarifying an otherwise undocumented parameter. Slightly list-heavy but appropriately sized for 12 params.

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?

Given 12 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics well but omits usage guidance, pagination behavior, and any behavioral risk context. It is minimally complete for invoking the tool but leaves gaps for an agent deciding between list_parts and get_parts.

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

Parameters4/5

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. It does so thoroughly, defining all 12 parameters with meaning, examples (e.g., '0805', 'SOIC-8'), ranges (limit 1-500), and defaults (sort_by 'DateCreatedUtc', direction 'Ascending'/'Descending'). This is a strong param clarification effort, though 'part_type' enum values aren't listed.

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 specific verb (list/search) and resource (parts), and the return behavior '(id, part_number) unless extra fields are requested' distinguishes it from get_parts. Sibling differentiation is implicit via the broad filter set, but not explicitly contrasted with get_parts.

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 guidance on when to use list_parts vs get_parts or other siblings. The description implies search/filter usage but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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

Deploy Server