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 'списка сделок' (list of deals) and filtering capability, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (format, fields), whether it's paginated, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a list operation with 4 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 that states the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details about the tool's behavior and usage context.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that could cause confusion, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'deal' represents in this context, what fields are returned, how filtering works, or how this differs from related tools. The description fails to provide adequate context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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. The description mentions 'возможностью фильтрации' (filtering capability) which hints at parameters like contact_id and company_id, but doesn't explain what these parameters do, their relationships, or the meaning of 'active_only' and 'limit'. With 4 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose as 'Получение списка сделок с возможностью фильтрации' (Getting a list of deals with filtering capability). It specifies the verb ('Получение' - getting) and resource ('списка сделок' - list of deals), and mentions filtering capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deal' (singular) or 'search_contacts' (different resource).

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_deals' versus 'get_deal' (for single deal) or 'search_contacts' (for contacts). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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