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. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this is paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or what the return format looks like. The mention of 'optional filtering and ordering' hints at capabilities but doesn't describe behavioral constraints or side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 perfectly concise at 7 words, front-loading the core purpose ('List companies') and efficiently adding scope information ('with optional filtering and ordering'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. This is an excellent example of economical description writing.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata about behavior, return values, or usage context. Given the complexity of filtering objects and ordering operations, more guidance would be helpful despite the good schema coverage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'optional filtering and ordering' which corresponds to the 'filter', 'orderBy', and 'orderDirection' parameters, but provides no additional semantic context. With complete 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('companies'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bitrix24_get_company' (singular fetch) and 'bitrix24_get_companies_from_date_range' (specific filter), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The mention of 'optional filtering and ordering' adds useful scope but doesn't fully differentiate from all similar list tools.

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_companies_from_date_range', 'bitrix24_get_companies_with_user_names', and 'bitrix24_get_latest_companies', there's no indication of when this general listing tool is preferable over more specific ones. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria.

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