Bitrix24 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, permission levels needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate data, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration or fluff.

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

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address key contextual questions: what permissions are required, what happens on success/failure, whether there are rate limits, what the return value contains, or how this differs from creating other CRM entities. The description provides only the most basic functional statement without the context needed for safe and effective use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('new contact in Bitrix24 CRM'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bitrix24_create_company' or 'bitrix24_create_lead' which also create CRM entities, leaving room for confusion about when to choose contact creation over other entity types.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'bitrix24_create_company', 'bitrix24_create_lead', and 'bitrix24_update_contact', there's no indication of when contact creation is appropriate versus creating other entities or updating existing contacts. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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