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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description fails to mention critical behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether the update is partial or full, how validation works, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 states the core purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral transparency (permissions, error handling), usage guidelines, or what to expect upon success/failure. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is lacking.

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 all 8 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, constraints, or formatting details). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('existing contact in Bitrix24 CRM'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'bitrix24_create_contact' by specifying it updates existing contacts rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other update tools like 'bitrix24_update_company' or 'bitrix24_update_deal' beyond the resource type.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing contact ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new contacts), or how it differs from similar update tools for companies or deals. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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