Binalyze AIR MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'without purging data' which is helpful, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to asset data, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation like uninstalling assets, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences add value: the first states what the tool does, the second emphasizes a key requirement. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

For a destructive operation like uninstalling assets with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'uninstall' means operationally, what the response looks like, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The context signals show complexity (nested objects, many filter options) that isn't addressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all filter properties thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing the 'includedEndpointIds' requirement, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('uninstall') and resource ('assets'), and specifies it's based on filters without purging data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'purge_and_uninstall_assets' tool, which appears to be a similar but more destructive operation.

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?

The description mentions 'without purging data' which hints at a less destructive alternative, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'purge_and_uninstall_assets' or other asset management tools. No clear guidance on prerequisites or alternatives is provided.

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