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 'retrieve' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid IDs. 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 maximally concise at just 4 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('retrieve', 'company information', 'by ID') serves a clear purpose in communicating the tool's function.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple similar sibling tools, it lacks important context about when to use it versus alternatives and what behavioral constraints exist. The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in a competitive toolset.

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 'id' clearly documented as 'Company ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Retrieve company information by ID' clearly states the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('company information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bitrix24_get_companies_from_date_range' or 'bitrix24_list_companies' which also retrieve company data but with different approaches.

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 multiple sibling tools for retrieving company data (e.g., get_companies_from_date_range, list_companies, get_companies_with_user_names), there's no indication whether this is for single-record lookup versus bulk operations, or what makes it distinct.

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