Bitrix24 MCP server

b24_tasks_create

Create a new task with title, description, assignee, deadline, priority, and other optional fields in Bitrix24.

Instructions

Crea una nueva tarea con título, descripción, responsable, fecha límite, prioridad y más.

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_tasks_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	Yes	Campos de la tarea. Requeridos: TITLE. Opcionales: DESCRIPTION, RESPONSIBLE_ID, DEADLINE (ISO8601), GROUP_ID, PRIORITY (0=baja, 1=normal, 2=alta), PARENT_ID, TAGS, CHECKLIST
`webhook_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates tasks (mutation) but reveals no side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or return behavior. Critical details are missing.

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?

Single sentence, no filler. Efficient but could add small structure without bloat.

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 presence of nested parameters and no output schema, the description lacks guidance on required fields (TITLE is required, not mentioned), optional parameters, and response format. The agent may fail without schema inspection.

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 50% but fields has detailed schema description. The description lists a subset of fields (title, description, etc.), adding slight clarity but not significantly beyond schema. The webhook_url parameter is omitted, and enum values are not repeated.

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 una nueva tarea' clearly indicates the action (create) and resource (task). It lists typical fields, distinguishing it from update or complete siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for creation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like b24_tasks_update or b24_tasks_complete. The 'new' keyword suggests fresh tasks, but no alternatives are mentioned.

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