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 states the search functionality but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of search results (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with three parameters.

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 function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage beyond basic semantics, and expected output format. For a search tool with multiple parameters, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent use.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions searchable fields (name, phone, email), which partially explains the 'query' parameter's semantics but doesn't address 'search_type' (e.g., what values it accepts beyond the default 'name') or 'limit' (e.g., max value, pagination implications). It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 searching contacts by name, phone, or email, which is specific (verb+resource+searchable fields). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' or 'get_contact', which likely have different functions (e.g., listing all contacts vs. retrieving a specific contact by ID).

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 like 'list_contacts' or 'get_contact'. It lacks context about scenarios where search is preferred over listing or direct retrieval, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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