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 but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, the format of returned data, or any rate limits. 'Get' implies a read operation, but lacks details about mutation safety, authentication needs, or response characteristics.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward filtering tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'deals' are in this context, what fields are returned, whether results are sorted, or how to handle large result sets. The lack of behavioral transparency and output information creates significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 all three parameters (startDate, endDate, limit) with formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying date-range filtering, which is already clear from the schema. 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('deals'), specifying the scope ('created within a specific date range'). It distinguishes from generic list tools like 'bitrix24_list_deals' by focusing on date filtering, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar date-range tools like 'bitrix24_get_companies_from_date_range' or 'bitrix24_get_leads_from_date_range'.

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 choose this over 'bitrix24_list_deals' (unfiltered listing), 'bitrix24_get_latest_deals' (recent deals without date parameters), or other filtering tools like 'bitrix24_filter_deals_by_status'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or complementary tools are specified.

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