Bitrix24 MCP server

b24_products_create

Create a product in the catalog. Specify a required name and optionally set price, currency, description, active status, section, or preview picture.

Instructions

Crea un nuevo producto en el catálogo.

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_products_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	Yes	Campos del producto. Requeridos: NAME. Opcionales: ACTIVE, PRICE, CURRENCY_ID, DESCRIPTION, SECTION_ID, PREVIEW_PICTURE
`webhook_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only states creation without disclosing side effects, default values, error behavior, or authentication needs, which are critical for a creation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Main description is a single clear sentence; inline schema description is appropriately structured. No redundant information, but could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or validation rules. The nested 'fields' parameter's additionalProperties is not explained, leaving ambiguity about allowed keys.

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?

Description within schema lists required (NAME) and optional fields, adding minimal clarity beyond schema properties. With 50% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks details on formats or constraints for fields like PRICE or CURRENCY_ID.

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 'Crea un nuevo producto en el catálogo' clearly specifies the verb (create) and resource (product in catalog), distinguishing it from sibling tools like b24_products_list, b24_products_get, b24_products_update.

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, no prerequisites, no context about required permissions or typical workflow scenarios.

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