Bitrix24 MCP server

b24_test_connection

Verify connection to Bitrix24 webhook and confirm portal details and user permissions.

Instructions

Verifica la conexión al webhook de Bitrix24 y confirma datos del portal y permisos del usuario.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "b24_test_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`webhook_url`	No	URL del webhook de Bitrix24 (opcional si está configurado por defecto)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add behavioral detail beyond a simple 'test connection' by stating that it confirms portal data and user permissions. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, or any side effects, leaving the behavioral profile only partially specified.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately names the verb and resource. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and the schema is minimal, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description mentions what is confirmed (portal data and permissions) but does not explain the return format, success/failure signals, or error behavior, leaving an agent without full information for interpreting the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter is already described as an optional webhook URL. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies without extra credit.

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 a specific verb ('Verifica'), a concrete resource ('conexión al webhook de Bitrix24'), and extends into what is confirmed (portal data and user permissions). It naturally distinguishes this tool from the sibling CRUD/action tools, as no other sibling is a connection test.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when not to, and no reference to alternatives. The usage is implied because it is the only test/connection tool among siblings, but the description doesn't state that it should be used to validate configuration before other operations or as a health check.

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