Bitrix24 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states ordering by creation date but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what fields are returned. For a read operation 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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral context (e.g., return format, pagination). Without annotations, it should provide more operational details to be fully complete.

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%, with the single parameter 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying ordering by creation date, which isn't a parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('most recent contacts'), specifying ordering by creation date. It distinguishes from 'bitrix24_list_contacts' by focusing on recency, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'bitrix24_get_contacts_with_user_names' or 'bitrix24_get_contact'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bitrix24_list_contacts' (unfiltered list) or 'bitrix24_get_contacts_with_user_names' (includes user data). The description implies usage for recent contacts but lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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