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 what the tool does (get leads with resolved user names) but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how user names are resolved (e.g., from user IDs), whether there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like (especially important without an output schema). The description is functional but misses critical operational context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes a helpful parenthetical clarification. Every part of the description earns its place by adding value.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested filter object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks crucial context: no information about output structure, error handling, authentication requirements, or how user name resolution interacts with parameters like filter. For a tool with rich input options and no structured output documentation, this leaves 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how the filter object works with user name resolution or provide examples). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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', with the specific enhancement 'with user names resolved' and clarifies which user fields are resolved (assigned, created, modified by). It distinguishes from generic lead-getting tools like 'bitrix24_list_leads' by specifying the user name resolution feature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bitrix24_get_leads_from_date_range' which might also return leads with filtering.

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_leads' (which might not resolve user names) or 'bitrix24_get_leads_from_date_range' (which might offer different filtering). No context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases is provided.

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