Bitrix24 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves companies with resolved user names, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether it's paginated (beyond the 'limit' parameter), what the output format is, or if there are rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core functionality: 'Get companies with user names resolved (assigned, created, modified by)'. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, nested filter object, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the key feature (resolved user names) but omits details on output structure, error handling, or usage context relative to siblings. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all parameters (limit, filter, orderBy, orderDirection). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as details on filter criteria or how user names are resolved. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from 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 tool's purpose: 'Get companies with user names resolved (assigned, created, modified by)'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('companies'), and key feature ('user names resolved'), making it distinct from generic list tools like 'bitrix24_list_companies'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bitrix24_get_companies_from_date_range' or 'bitrix24_get_latest_companies', which might also retrieve companies with similar parameters.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'bitrix24_list_companies' (which might list companies without resolved user names) or 'bitrix24_get_companies_from_date_range' (which might filter by date). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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