Bitrix24 MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Получение информации'), but doesn't disclose if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and key constraint.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error cases, and with 0% schema coverage, parameter details are lacking. For even a basic read tool, more context on usage and output would be helpful.

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 but adds little. It mentions 'по ID' ('by ID'), which hints at the 'contact_id' parameter, but doesn't explain its semantics (e.g., that it's an integer, where to find valid IDs, or format constraints). With 1 parameter undocumented in both schema and description, value beyond schema is minimal.

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 verb ('Получение информации' - 'Getting information') and resource ('о контакте' - 'about a contact'), specifying it's by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' (which lists multiple) and 'search_contacts' (which searches). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what specific information is retrieved, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid contact ID), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'list_contacts' for bulk retrieval or 'search_contacts' for fuzzy matching. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.