Bitrix MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful details about return format (plain text labeled fields, no Markdown), but omits error handling, authentication requirements, and behavior when an exact title is not found.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action and return format, and contains no redundant filler.

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?

Given a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main workflow: search first, then fetch by exact title, and expect plain text labeled fields. It lacks edge-case behavior details but is reasonably complete for a simple fetch tool.

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% and the only parameter is `title_or_hint`. The description clarifies it should be an exact title and tells the agent to find it via `bitrix-search`, but does not explain what a 'hint' is or how it differs from an exact title.

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 specifies the action ('Fetch Bitrix24 app development documentation'), the target resource, and the matching mode ('by exact title'). It also differentiates from sibling detail tools by naming the doc type and the prerequisite search tool.

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 explicitly instructs to use `bitrix-search` with `doc_type app_development_docs` first, establishing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude sibling detail tools, but the scope 'app development docs' distinguishes it adequately.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Fetch') and return format (Markdown with title, metadata, description, content). However, it does not mention error handling, exact-match failure behavior, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic fetch. Some transparency is provided, but gaps remain.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately providing return format and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, with no waste or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nesting) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return structure in detail. It covers the core use case and provides a pointer to the search tool for finding titles. Minor omissions include behavior on not-found and clarification of the 'or_hint' parameter, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the parameter, but the description clarifies that the parameter is the 'exact title' and suggests using bitrix-search to find it. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the parameter name 'title_or_hint' is not explained, leaving ambiguity about whether a hint is acceptable versus an exact title.

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 tool's function: 'Fetch a non-method Bitrix24 documentation article by exact title'. It identifies the resource (non-method articles) and distinguishes from sibling tools like bitrix-method-details and bitrix-event-details by explicitly marking them as not applicable.

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 provides clear context: use this for non-method articles, and it references `bitrix-search` with doc_type other to find the exact title. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for methods/events) or name alternatives beyond the search tool. The context is present but not fully explicit.

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

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 describes the return format (Markdown with title, metadata, description, content) but does not disclose edge cases like behavior when event is not found, case sensitivity, or read-only nature. Lacks error handling details.

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 sentences with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, includes a usage hint, and specifies the return format. Every element earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage, and return format. It omits potential error behavior and prerequisites, but these are not critical for basic invocation. Overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 has one parameter 'title_or_hint' with 0% coverage. The description implies it should be the exact event name, providing some meaning beyond the schema. However, the parameter name is ambiguous ('title_or_hint') and not explicitly mapped to the event name, leaving room for confusion.

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?

Clearly states the tool fetches Bitrix24 event documentation by exact event name, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling detail tools by focusing on events and referencing bitrix-search.

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?

Provides implied usage guidance by instructing to use `bitrix-search` with doc_type event, which suggests a search-then-details workflow. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., for methods or articles), but the event-specific scope is evident.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the return format is 'plain text with labeled sections including parameters, returns, errors, and examples', and explains how the optional parameters modify output. This goes beyond a simple verb and adds useful behavioral context.

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 two sentences long and packed with essential information. It front-loads the purpose, then efficiently covers output and parameter options. Every clause contributes value without redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, what it returns, and how parameters affect results. It could mention error handling or the specific sections available for 'field', but the 'use search first' hint mitigates the need for error details, making it sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 0% property description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'method' requires exact name, 'field' limits output, and 'filter' narrows params/examples. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, though it stops short of enumerating valid values or formats.

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 tool's function: 'Get details for a Bitrix24 REST method by exact name'—a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the prerequisite workflow 'use bitrix-search first', which helps differentiate it from the sibling search tool and other detail tools.

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 explicitly directs users to use 'bitrix-search first' to find the exact method name, implying this tool is for post-search lookups. While it doesn't contrast with other detail tools, it establishes a clear usage context and prerequisite, which is sufficient guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns a short plain-text list of matches (not full details) and instructs to use exact names for subsequent calls. It does not mention side effects or limitations, but as a search operation, that is acceptable. It adds useful context beyond the bare schema.

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 extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, output format, usage guidance, and parameters. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, how to use the results with sibling tools, and what parameters exist. There are no obvious gaps in context.

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. It explains 'Optional filters: limit and doc_type' and even lists the allowed enum values for doc_type. The `query` parameter is self-explanatory from the description ('natural-language query'). While limit isn't explicitly defined, its meaning is implied by the name and context, adding value over the raw 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 tool's function: 'Search Bitrix24 REST docs by natural-language query and return a short plain-text list of matches.' It specifies the resource (Bitrix24 REST docs), the action (search), and the output format (list with name, type, and description). It also distinguishes itself from sibling detail tools by noting that results should be used to call those tools.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use the exact name/title from results when calling details tools.' This implies this tool is the entry point before using the sibling detail tools. While it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the context of the sibling tools makes the intended workflow clear.

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