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 mentions 'optional filtering and ordering' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no leads match filters. For a listing tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 ('List leads') followed by key capabilities ('with optional filtering and ordering'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (especially critical with no annotations), doesn't explain return format or structure, and provides no differentiation from similar sibling tools. For a listing tool in a crowded namespace, more contextual guidance would be helpful.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'optional filtering and ordering' which aligns with the 'filter' and 'orderBy/orderDirection' parameters but provides no additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('leads'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'bitrix24_get_latest_leads', 'bitrix24_get_leads_from_date_range', or 'bitrix24_get_leads_with_user_names', which appear to serve similar listing/filtering purposes.

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 the many sibling listing tools (e.g., 'bitrix24_get_latest_leads', 'bitrix24_get_leads_from_date_range'). It mentions 'optional filtering and ordering' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or when alternative tools might be more appropriate.

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