Get details for a Bitrix24 REST method by exact name (use bitrix-search first). Returns plain text with labeled sections including parameters, returns, errors, and examples. Optional field limits output; filter narrows params by entity or examples by language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | No | all | |
| filter | No | ||
| method | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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.
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.