Bitrix24 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get all users' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this is paginated, rate-limited, permission-dependent, or what format/details are returned. The phrase 'with their names and details' is vague about what specific details are included. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the most critical information more explicitly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, return format, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a read operation with no annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'includeInactive'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'all users in the system' with additional detail 'with their names and details'. It's specific about scope (all users) and output content (names and details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bitrix24_get_user' or 'bitrix24_resolve_user_names', which prevents a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate compared to 'bitrix24_get_user' (single user) or 'bitrix24_resolve_user_names' (name resolution). No context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases is provided.

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