Bitrix MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses exact title matching requirement and detailed return format (plain text labeled fields, specific field names listed, no Markdown). Lacks explicit mention of idempotency or error cases.

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, zero waste. First sentence front-loads action + prerequisite workflow. Second sentence details return format. Every clause 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?

Complete for single-parameter fetch tool despite minimal schema. Explains input requirement, workflow dependency, and return structure (output schema exists but description adds human-readable field labels). Could mention 'not found' behavior.

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 0% description coverage. Description compensates by specifying parameter accepts 'exact title' and provides workflow context for obtaining valid values. Minor gap: doesn't explain 'hint' aspect of parameter name 'title_or_hint'.

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?

Explicit verb 'Fetch' + specific resource 'Bitrix24 app development documentation'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'bitrix-search' by requiring exact title vs. search capability.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance: directs users to use 'bitrix-search' with specific doc_type first to obtain the exact title, clarifying the prerequisite step and when to use each tool in the sequence.

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 full burden but provides limited behavioral insight. It mentions the return format (Markdown with specific fields) and hints at exact matching, but omits details like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 front-loaded and concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage note, and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, basic usage, and output format, though could improve on behavioral details and parameter semantics. The output schema reduces need for return value explanation.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'title_or_hint' is for exact title matching and referencing `bitrix-search` for other uses, but does not detail format constraints or examples. This partially compensates but leaves gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('non-method Bitrix24 documentation article'), specifying it retrieves by exact title. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'use `bitrix-search` with doc_type other' for alternatives, though not fully explicit about when to use each sibling. Purpose is specific but sibling differentiation could be more direct.

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?

Guidelines are implied: use for exact title matches, and use `bitrix-search` for other doc_types. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or clear alternatives among siblings like `bitrix-method-details`. The context is clear but not comprehensive for tool selection.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format (Markdown with specific components) which is helpful, but doesn't address potential error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid event names. It provides basic operational context but lacks comprehensive behavioral 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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first defines the tool's function and parameter requirement, the second specifies the output format. There is zero wasted language and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 has an output schema (which presumably documents the return structure), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values. It provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it versus alternatives. However, the parameter semantics gap and lack of error handling information prevent a perfect score.

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 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'title_or_hint', and the description only vaguely references 'exact event name' without explaining what format this parameter expects, what constitutes a valid event name, or clarifying the 'hint' aspect of the parameter name. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter name.

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 specific action ('Fetch Bitrix24 event documentation'), resource ('by exact event name'), and output format ('Returns Markdown with title, metadata, description, and content'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is for event documentation only, unlike other documentation types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('by exact event name') versus alternatives ('use `bitrix-search` with doc_type event'). It clearly directs users to a sibling tool for searching when they don't have the exact event name.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns ('plain text with labeled sections including parameters, returns, errors, and examples'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling specifics.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first establishes the core purpose and workflow, the second explains optional parameters. Every phrase adds value with zero wasted words, making it highly front-loaded and concise.

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 has an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description focuses appropriately on usage context and parameter semantics. With no annotations, it provides good behavioral transparency about the output format. The main gap is lack of information about authentication, rate limits, or error conditions that might be relevant for API documentation tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It successfully explains the purpose of all three parameters: 'method' is implied as the exact method name, 'field' limits output, and 'filter' narrows parameters by entity or examples by language. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare 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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get details') and resource ('for a Bitrix24 REST method by exact name'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'bitrix-search' by specifying that tool should be used first to find method names, establishing a clear workflow relationship.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'use `bitrix-search` first' establishes a prerequisite workflow, and the mention of optional parameters 'field' and 'filter' indicates when to use those for limiting output. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search functionality and output format ('short plain-text list'), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds basic context but leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the core functionality and output, the second covers parameters and workflow guidance. Every element serves a purpose with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage workflow with siblings, and parameter semantics. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks behavioral context like authentication or rate limits that would be important for a search 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It explains the purpose of 'limit' and 'doc_type' parameters, including the valid values for doc_type. However, it doesn't explain the 'query' parameter beyond 'natural-language query', nor provide examples or format guidance. The description adds substantial value but doesn't fully document all parameters.

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 specific action ('Search Bitrix24 REST docs by natural-language query') and resource ('Bitrix24 REST docs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which provide details for specific types. It explicitly mentions the return format ('short plain-text list of matches with name, type, and brief description'), making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it instructs to 'Use the exact name/title from results when calling details tools', directly referencing sibling tools like bitrix-method-details. This creates a clear workflow where this tool is for initial search and siblings are for detailed follow-up.

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