Retrieve leads from Bitrix24 CRM, sorted newest first, with optional status filtering to target specific prospects.
List leads, newest first, optionally by status (e.g. NEW, IN_PROCESS).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful ordering trait ("newest first"), but says nothing about result volume, the default page size of 20, or how to page past it.
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?
A single sentence with the resource, ordering, and optional filter front-loaded in that order. No filler, no 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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the tool is simple with only two optional params. The gap is the undocumented limit/pagination semantics, which an agent needs to avoid silently truncating results at 20.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain status_id with concrete example values (NEW, IN_PROCESS), which the schema lacks (it is just a nullable string). However, the limit parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two params undocumented everywhere.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List leads") plus the default ordering ("newest first"), which is enough to distinguish it from the deal/contact/task siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
"optionally by status" implies the filter is optional and gives example values, which implies when to use it. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of pagination behavior, and no named alternative for fetching a single lead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.