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 a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination details, error handling, or the format/structure of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 with zero redundant or verbose language. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with potential complexity (date-range filtering, limit handling), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper invocation.

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 clear documentation for all three parameters (startDate, endDate, limit) including formats, optionality, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('leads'), specifying the scope ('created within a specific date range'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bitrix24_list_leads' by indicating date-based filtering, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'bitrix24_get_latest_leads' or 'bitrix24_get_leads_with_user_names', which offer different filtering approaches.

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 implies usage for retrieving leads within a date range, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bitrix24_get_latest_leads' (for recent leads) or 'bitrix24_list_leads' (for unfiltered listing). It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts.

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