Bitrix24 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, what happens with invalid IDs, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Resolve user IDs to user names'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, contains zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple mapping tool. Every word earns its place.

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 apparent simplicity (one parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, return format, or performance characteristics. For a tool that likely involves data retrieval, more context would be helpful, but it's adequate for basic understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'userIds' parameter clearly documented as 'Array of user IDs to resolve to names'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as ID format examples, constraints, or handling of empty arrays. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve user IDs to user names' - a specific verb ('resolve') acting on a resource ('user IDs') to produce an outcome ('user names'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'bitrix24_get_user' which likely retrieves user details rather than mapping IDs to names. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other user-related tools beyond the core function.

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_get_all_users' or 'bitrix24_get_user' that might serve similar purposes, nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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