Bitrix24 MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| BITRIX_WEBHOOK_URL | Yes | The URL of the Bitrix24 incoming webhook (e.g., https://your-domain.bitrix24.ru/rest/1/yoursecretcode/) |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_contactC | Получение информации о контакте по ID |
| search_contactsC | Поиск контактов по имени, телефону или email |
| list_contactsC | Получение списка контактов с возможностью фильтрации |
| get_dealC | Получение информации о сделке по ID |
| list_dealsC | Получение списка сделок с возможностью фильтрации |
| update_deal_stageD | Обновление стадии сделки |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| deals://active | Получение списка активных сделок |
TDQS
Scored across 6 tools
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools target specific resources (contacts vs. deals) and actions (get, list, search, update), making misselection unlikely. For example, get_contact and search_contacts serve different retrieval needs, while update_deal_stage is the only modification tool.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable: get_contact, get_deal, list_contacts, list_deals, search_contacts, and update_deal_stage. This uniformity aids agent understanding and tool selection.
Six tools is reasonable for a CRM-focused server, but it feels slightly under-scoped. While core read operations are covered, there are no create, update (except for deal stage), or delete tools, which might limit functionality. However, the count itself is well within typical ranges.
There are notable gaps in the tool surface for a CRM domain. It provides good read/search coverage for contacts and deals, but lacks create, update (beyond deal stage), and delete operations. This could cause agent failures when full CRUD workflows are needed, though basic retrieval tasks are supported.