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 'Get user information' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned (e.g., contact details, permissions). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool with one parameter.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'user information' includes (e.g., fields returned), potential errors, or system constraints. For a tool in a complex CRM context with many siblings, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed about behavioral and output expectations.

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 parameter 'userId' clearly documented as 'User ID to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string ID) or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get user information by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('user information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bitrix24_get_all_users' or 'bitrix24_resolve_user_names', which would require a 5.

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. With siblings like 'bitrix24_get_all_users' (list all users) and 'bitrix24_resolve_user_names' (likely for name resolution), the agent receives no help in choosing between them for specific scenarios.

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