Fetch Bitrix24 app development documentation by exact title (use bitrix-search with doc_type app_development_docs). Returns plain text labeled fields (Title, URL, Module, Category, Description, Content) without Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title_or_hint | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: bitrix-search is for general searching, while the other four tools each fetch details for a specific documentation type (app development, articles, events, methods). The descriptions explicitly differentiate them by doc_type and output format, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to use for a given task.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'bitrix-' prefix, followed by a descriptive noun or noun phrase (e.g., 'search', 'method-details'), and ending with '-details' for the four detail-fetching tools. This verb_noun-like structure is uniform throughout the set, making it predictable and easy to understand.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a documentation server focused on Bitrix24. It includes a search tool and four detail tools covering key documentation types, which is efficient and avoids bloat. Each tool serves a clear, necessary function without redundancy.
The tool surface is complete for the domain of fetching Bitrix24 documentation. It covers the full workflow: searching across all doc types with bitrix-search, then retrieving detailed information for each specific type (app development, articles, events, methods). There are no obvious gaps, as agents can seamlessly move from search to details without dead ends.