Bitrix24 MCP server

b24_bizproc_start

Start a business process workflow on a CRM document by providing the template and document IDs.

Instructions

Inicia un proceso de negocio (workflow) sobre un documento o registro CRM.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "template_id": "<template_id>",
      "document_id": "<document_id>"
    },
    "name": "b24_bizproc_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`template_id`	Yes	ID de la plantilla de proceso de negocio
`document_id`	Yes	Array con 3 elementos identificando el documento: ["crm", "CCrmDocumentDeal", "DEAL_123"] para un deal con ID 123
`parameters`	No	Parámetros del proceso
`webhook_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states 'starts a business process' without disclosing side effects, permissions required, idempotency, return value, or error behavior. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence of 12 words that immediately conveys the core purpose. No redundant phrases, well front-loaded, and every word is essential.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or how to construct the document_id, which is crucial given the nested object example. The tool is complex but the description is too brief.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters (75% coverage), and the description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 per guidelines; the description does not improve or contradict the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('inicia' = starts) and the resource ('proceso de negocio sobre un documento o registro CRM'), making it obvious what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like b24_bizproc_list by focusing on starting rather than listing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites for template_id or document_id, or when not to use it. The description lacks context on selecting the right template or handling errors.

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