Retrieve Bitrix24 tasks sorted newest first, with optional filters for status, responsible user, and result limit to focus task reviews.
List tasks, newest first.
status: 2 pending, 3 in progress, 4 awaiting control, 5 completed, 6 deferred.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| responsible_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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context (default ordering newest-first) and the status code legend, but says nothing about pagination, default limit behavior, or whether results are truncated.
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 short lines, front-loaded with the core action and ordering. The status legend is dense but earns its place given the 0% schema coverage. Slightly cryptic formatting ('status:' as a bare label) costs a point.
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-value explanation is not needed. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the definition omits the meaning of 'limit' and 'responsible_id' and doesn't clarify whether status filtering accepts a single value or a list — gaps an agent would hit at call time.
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 does document the status parameter's magic integer values well (2–6), but leaves 'limit' and 'responsible_id' entirely unexplained, and the status legend appears incomplete (values 0/1 are unaccounted for). Partial compensation only.
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 tasks') plus a scope/ordering detail ('newest first'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools (deals, contacts, leads, deal stages). No sibling performs a similar task-listing function, so no explicit differentiation is required.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb — an agent knows to call this when it needs tasks — but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note on how to combine the status and responsible_id filters. Adequate but thin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.