Bitrix24 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'возможностью фильтрации' (filtering capability), which hints at functionality, but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), default behavior, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a list tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide the agent effectively.

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: 'Получение списка контактов с возможностью фильтрации'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and adds a brief capability note. There's no wasted words, making it appropriately concise for a basic tool description, though it could be more informative.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools like 'search_contacts', the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, how filtering works, or differentiate from alternatives. For a list tool with filtering parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering capability, which loosely relates to the 'company_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'limit' or 'company_id' mean, their formats, or how they interact. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify semantics adequately.

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 states the purpose as 'Получение списка контактов с возможностью фильтрации' (Getting a list of contacts with filtering capability), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Получение' - getting) and resource ('контактов' - contacts), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_contacts' or specify what kind of filtering is available. It's adequate but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering capability but doesn't specify when to use 'list_contacts' versus 'search_contacts' or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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