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 fetches deals with resolved user names, implying a read-only operation that enriches data with user information. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error handling, or what 'resolved' entails (e.g., whether it includes full names or IDs). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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: 'Get deals with user names resolved (assigned, created, modified by)'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes clarifying parentheses. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the key feature (user name resolution) but lacks context on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally provide more completeness, but it meets a basic threshold by stating the purpose clearly.

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 additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how 'filter' interacts with user resolution or if 'orderBy' affects performance. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 deals with user names resolved (assigned, created, modified by)'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('deals'), and key feature ('user names resolved'), which distinguishes it from generic deal-fetching tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'bitrix24_get_deals_from_date_range' or 'bitrix24_list_deals', which would require more specific comparison.

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 it's preferred over other deal-related tools (e.g., 'bitrix24_list_deals', 'bitrix24_get_deals_from_date_range') or clarify if it's for specific scenarios like reporting or user attribution analysis. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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