Bitrix24 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core functionality (getting contacts with resolved user names) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are ordered, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 front-loads the key information: the action (Get), resource (contacts), and unique feature (user names resolved). There is zero wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (2 parameters, nested object in filter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, permissions, output format) and usage guidelines. With no output schema, it should ideally hint at return values, but the concise description focuses on the core feature without addressing these gaps fully.

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 both parameters ('limit' and 'filter'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain typical filter criteria, how user name resolution works with filters, or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 ('contacts'), and specifies the key feature of resolving user names for assigned, created, and modified by fields. It distinguishes from generic list tools like 'bitrix24_list_contacts' by highlighting the user name resolution, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'bitrix24_get_companies_with_user_names' or 'bitrix24_get_deals_with_user_names' beyond the resource type.

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 when to prefer this over 'bitrix24_list_contacts' (which likely doesn't resolve user names) or 'bitrix24_get_contact' (for single contacts), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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