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 this is a retrieval operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or mention any other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero 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 extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('retrieve', 'deal information', 'by ID') contributes directly to understanding 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., deal fields, format), whether it's a read-only operation, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context would be helpful for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 description mentions retrieving 'by ID', which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter already has a clear description), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already documented in the structured data. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('retrieve') and resource ('deal information by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'bitrix24_get_deals_from_date_range' or 'bitrix24_list_deals', which also retrieve deal information but with different parameters or scopes.

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_get_deals_from_date_range', 'bitrix24_list_deals', and 'bitrix24_get_latest_deals' available, there's no indication that this tool is specifically for retrieving a single deal by ID rather than multiple deals by other criteria.

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