Skip to main content
Glama
paskal

bitrix24-mcp-server

by paskal

bitrix24_crm_lead_list

List and filter CRM leads by status, assignee, creation date, and more. Sort results and select specific fields to return.

Instructions

List and filter CRM leads

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax leads to return. WITHOUT this the tool returns at most 500 (10 pages x 50) and silently truncates — the response 'total' shows the true match count while 'leads' is capped at 500. For a query that matches more, pass limit >= total to fetch everything.
orderNoSort order, e.g. {ID: 'desc'}
filterNoFilter, e.g. {STATUS_ID: 'NEW', ASSIGNED_BY_ID: 854}. Comparison operators DO work here, re-verified against this portal 2026-07-28: {'>=DATE_CREATE': '2026-07-20T00:00:00+03:00'} (inclusive, full ISO timestamp honoured), {'>DATE_CREATE': ...} (exclusive), {'>=ID': N} and {'>ID': N} all filter correctly — this tool posts the filter as JSON, so the curl --data-urlencode trap (which leaves the '>' in the KEY unencoded and makes Bitrix drop the condition) does not apply. Date-only values with a strict '>' are NOT required. The operator that IS unreliable: {FIELD: ''} ("is empty") on UF string fields returns records regardless (measured: 8 of 50 rows came back non-empty), so always client-check the value. {'!FIELD': ''} (truthy) and {FIELD: value} (exact) are reliable.
selectNoFields to return
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The one-line description only states the basic function and does not mention important traits like pagination, filtering behavior, or data safety. The parameter descriptions in the schema provide some behavioral notes, but those are not part of the tool's description field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at five words, conveying the essential purpose without redundancy. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format, e.g., mentioning key features like filtering.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits details about pagination limits, default behavior, typical use cases, and what the response looks like. The parameter descriptions help but are not part of the description field.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists and filters CRM leads, specifying the resource (leads) and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bitrix24_crm_deal_list or bitrix24_crm_lead_get, though the resource name provides implicit distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bitrix24_crm_lead_get for individual leads or list tools for other CRM entities. The description lacks any context for selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/paskal/bitrix24-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server