Find Bitrix24 contacts by phone, email, or name using a single query; the input format routes searches to the matching field.
Find contacts by phone, email or name.
A query with '@' searches email, a query with 6+ digits searches phone, anything else searches first and last name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description's job is to add matching behavior — and it does, disclosing the field-routing heuristic the agent cannot infer elsewhere. It stays silent on partial vs exact matching, ordering, and how the default limit truncates results, which keeps it from a 5.
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 sentences, front-loaded purpose followed by the dispatch rules, with zero filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs to build a valid query.
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 values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter search tool, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it correctly apart from `limit` behavior, which is minor.
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% (only titles and a default), so the description must compensate — and it fully specifies the semantics of the required `query` parameter via the '@'/digit/name rules. The `limit` parameter is left entirely undocumented beyond its default of 10, so compensation is incomplete for one of the two params.
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 ('Find contacts') plus the three attributes searched (phone, email, name). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_contact, which an agent could reasonably consider for single-record lookups.
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 gives strong guidance on how to construct the query ('@' for email, 6+ digits for phone, otherwise name), which is effectively usage guidance for the single critical parameter. But it offers no when-to-use/when-not framing versus alternatives such as get_contact or list_leads; usage is only implied by the query format rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.