bas-mcp-server

search_catalog

Search catalog items in 1C/BAS systems (e.g., counterparties, products, warehouses) using text query, code, or tax ID, with optional OData filter.

Instructions

Пошук елементів у довідниках 1С/BAS (наприклад, Контрагенты, Номенклатура, Склады, ФизическиеЛица)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "catalog_name": "<catalog_name>"
    },
    "name": "search_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Рядок пошуку (шукає за найменуванням, кодом або ЄДРПОУ)
`filter`	No	Стандартний OData $filter вираз (опціонально, наприклад: "Parent_Key eq guid'...'")
`catalog_name`	Yes	Назва довідника без префікса Catalog_ (наприклад, Контрагенты)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions searching but does not specify return format, result limits, pagination, ordering, or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of such details leaves key behaviors undocumented.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the core purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no annotations or output schema, so the description must compensate for missing behavioral context. It fails to mention what the search returns, how results are structured, or any constraints on the query/filter logic. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with three parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the descriptions of query, filter, and catalog_name already provide adequate meaning. The tool description adds examples of catalog names but no additional parameter semantics, keeping this at the baseline.

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's purpose: searching for elements in 1C/BAS directories, with examples of directories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_catalog_element or create_catalog_element, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_catalog_element for cases where an ID is known.

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. The description only explains what it does, not when to choose it over get_catalog_element or other search-like operations. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server