Bitrix24 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive performance summary' but lacks details on what that entails (e.g., format, pagination, rate limits, or permissions required). It doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, how data is aggregated, or potential performance impacts, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key features or use cases, but it's still highly concise and to the point.

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 of a performance summary tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, data aggregation methods, or any behavioral traits like error handling or data freshness. This leaves the AI agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying metrics like 'deal metrics and conversion rates,' which map to parameters like 'includeDealMetrics' and 'includeConversionRates,' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 comprehensive performance summary for users including deal metrics and conversion rates.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'performance summary for users' with details about included metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bitrix24_compare_user_performance' or 'bitrix24_get_team_dashboard,' which might offer similar functionality.

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 sibling tools like 'bitrix24_compare_user_performance' for comparisons or 'bitrix24_get_team_dashboard' for team-level insights. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing user data availability, or exclusions, like not working for historical data beyond a certain range.

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