Bitrix24 MCP server

b24_crm_create

Create CRM records such as deals, contacts, companies, leads, quotes, or SPA items using specified fields and optional parameters.

Instructions

Crea un nuevo registro CRM: deal, contact, company, lead, cotización, o item de SPA.

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": {
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "b24_crm_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entity`	No
`entity_type_id`	No
`fields`	Yes	Campos del registro a crear. Ejemplo: { "TITLE": "Nuevo deal", "STAGE_ID": "NEW", "ASSIGNED_BY_ID": 1 }
`params`	No	Parámetros adicionales del método (ej: REGISTER_SONET_EVENT)
`webhook_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'creates a new record' without mentioning permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single-sentence description is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details, making it minimally adequate.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, low coverage), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain parameter relationships, usage of 'entity_type_id', or behavior of 'params' and 'webhook_url'.

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?

Schema coverage is 40% (only 'fields' and 'params' have descriptions). The description lists entity types but does not explain how to use the 'entity' or 'entity_type_id' parameters. It adds marginal value beyond 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 tool creates a new CRM record and lists six specific types (deal, contact, company, lead, quote, SPA item), distinguishing it from siblings like b24_crm_update or b24_crm_delete.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., b24_crm_update for updates, b24_crm_get for retrieval). There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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