F
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceMCP server for interacting with Bitrix24 REST API, enabling CRUD operations on deals, contacts, companies, users, leads, and tasks, plus analytics and risk assessment.
2
-
Bitrix MCP
Server Details
MCP server that delivers up-to-date Bitrix24 REST API documentation.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
5 toolsbitrix-app-development-doc-detailsAInspect
Fetch Bitrix24 app development documentation by exact title (use bitrix-search with doc_type app_development_docs). Returns plain text labeled fields (Title, URL, Module, Category, Description, Content) without Markdown.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title_or_hint | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful details about return format (plain text labeled fields, no Markdown), but omits error handling, authentication requirements, and behavior when an exact title is not found.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action and return format, and contains no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main workflow: search first, then fetch by exact title, and expect plain text labeled fields. It lacks edge-case behavior details but is reasonably complete for a simple fetch tool.
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 0% and the only parameter is `title_or_hint`. The description clarifies it should be an exact title and tells the agent to find it via `bitrix-search`, but does not explain what a 'hint' is or how it differs from an exact title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Fetch Bitrix24 app development documentation'), the target resource, and the matching mode ('by exact title'). It also differentiates from sibling detail tools by naming the doc type and the prerequisite search tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs to use `bitrix-search` with `doc_type app_development_docs` first, establishing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude sibling detail tools, but the scope 'app development docs' distinguishes it adequately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
bitrix-article-detailsAInspect
Fetch a non-method Bitrix24 documentation article by exact title (use bitrix-search with doc_type other). Returns Markdown with title, metadata (URL/module/category), description, and content.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title_or_hint | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Fetch') and return format (Markdown with title, metadata, description, content). However, it does not mention error handling, exact-match failure behavior, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic fetch. Some transparency is provided, but gaps remain.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately providing return format and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, with no waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no nesting) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return structure in detail. It covers the core use case and provides a pointer to the search tool for finding titles. Minor omissions include behavior on not-found and clarification of the 'or_hint' parameter, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for the parameter, but the description clarifies that the parameter is the 'exact title' and suggests using bitrix-search to find it. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the parameter name 'title_or_hint' is not explained, leaving ambiguity about whether a hint is acceptable versus an exact title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Fetch a non-method Bitrix24 documentation article by exact title'. It identifies the resource (non-method articles) and distinguishes from sibling tools like bitrix-method-details and bitrix-event-details by explicitly marking them as not applicable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this for non-method articles, and it references `bitrix-search` with doc_type other to find the exact title. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for methods/events) or name alternatives beyond the search tool. The context is present but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
bitrix-event-detailsAInspect
Fetch Bitrix24 event documentation by exact event name (use bitrix-search with doc_type event). Returns Markdown with title, metadata (URL/module/category), description, and content.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title_or_hint | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format (Markdown with title, metadata, description, content) but does not disclose edge cases like behavior when event is not found, case sensitivity, or read-only nature. Lacks error handling details.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, includes a usage hint, and specifies the return format. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage, and return format. It omits potential error behavior and prerequisites, but these are not critical for basic invocation. Overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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 has one parameter 'title_or_hint' with 0% coverage. The description implies it should be the exact event name, providing some meaning beyond the schema. However, the parameter name is ambiguous ('title_or_hint') and not explicitly mapped to the event name, leaving room for confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool fetches Bitrix24 event documentation by exact event name, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling detail tools by focusing on events and referencing bitrix-search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage guidance by instructing to use `bitrix-search` with doc_type event, which suggests a search-then-details workflow. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., for methods or articles), but the event-specific scope is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
bitrix-method-detailsAInspect
Get details for a Bitrix24 REST method by exact name (use bitrix-search first). Returns plain text with labeled sections including parameters, returns, errors, and examples. Optional field limits output; filter narrows params by entity or examples by language.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | No | all | |
| filter | No | ||
| method | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the return format is 'plain text with labeled sections including parameters, returns, errors, and examples', and explains how the optional parameters modify output. This goes beyond a simple verb and adds useful behavioral context.
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 two sentences long and packed with essential information. It front-loads the purpose, then efficiently covers output and parameter options. Every clause contributes value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, what it returns, and how parameters affect results. It could mention error handling or the specific sections available for 'field', but the 'use search first' hint mitigates the need for error details, making it sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% property description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'method' requires exact name, 'field' limits output, and 'filter' narrows params/examples. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, though it stops short of enumerating valid values or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get details for a Bitrix24 REST method by exact name'—a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the prerequisite workflow 'use bitrix-search first', which helps differentiate it from the sibling search tool and other detail tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly directs users to use 'bitrix-search first' to find the exact method name, implying this tool is for post-search lookups. While it doesn't contrast with other detail tools, it establishes a clear usage context and prerequisite, which is sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
bitrix-searchAInspect
Search Bitrix24 REST docs by natural-language query and return a short plain-text list of matches (method/event/article/app doc) with name, type, and brief description. Use the exact name/title from results when calling details tools. Optional filters: limit and doc_type (method|event|other|app_development_docs).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| doc_type | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns a short plain-text list of matches (not full details) and instructs to use exact names for subsequent calls. It does not mention side effects or limitations, but as a search operation, that is acceptable. It adds useful context beyond the bare schema.
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 extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, output format, usage guidance, and parameters. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, how to use the results with sibling tools, and what parameters exist. There are no obvious gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'Optional filters: limit and doc_type' and even lists the allowed enum values for doc_type. The `query` parameter is self-explanatory from the description ('natural-language query'). While limit isn't explicitly defined, its meaning is implied by the name and context, adding value over the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Bitrix24 REST docs by natural-language query and return a short plain-text list of matches.' It specifies the resource (Bitrix24 REST docs), the action (search), and the output format (list with name, type, and description). It also distinguishes itself from sibling detail tools by noting that results should be used to call those tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Use the exact name/title from results when calling details tools.' This implies this tool is the entry point before using the sibling detail tools. While it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the context of the sibling tools makes the intended workflow clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
4 tool updates
- Added
bitrix-app-development-doc-details - Changed
bitrix-article-details1 field changed- removed
Input schema / properties / top_kRemoved value: -{ - "default": 5, - "type": "integer" -}
- Changed
bitrix-event-details1 field changed- removed
Input schema / properties / top_kRemoved value: -{ - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "integer" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "default": null -}
- Changed
bitrix-search5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / doc_typeAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "items": { + "enum": [ + "method", + "event", + "other", + "app_development_docs" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null +} - added
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "integer" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null +} - removed
Input schema / properties / max_suggestionsRemoved value: -{ - "default": 3, - "type": "integer" -} - removed
Input schema / properties / suggestionsRemoved value: -{ - "default": false, - "type": "boolean" -} - removed
Input schema / properties / top_kRemoved value: -{ - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "integer" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "default": null -}
4 tool updates
- First observed
bitrix-article-details - First observed
bitrix-event-details - First observed
bitrix-method-details - First observed
bitrix-search
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for opencode documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
MCP server for innovationlab documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
MCP server enabling AI agents to manage Bitrix24 features via standardized protocol
MCP server for the PDFGate API. Generate PDFs, manage documents and handle e-signatures.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceA complete MCP server over the Bitrix24 REST API, enabling CRM, tasks, chats, files, calendar, HR, smart processes, mail, telephony, business processes, and events through 30 tools and ~290 actions. Supports incoming webhook or OAuth 2.0 authentication and works over stdio or Streamable HTTP.431,2451MIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceUniversal MCP server for the Bitrix24 REST API, enabling full read and write access to CRM, tasks, calendar, disk, and more. Supports any MCP client with stdio or Streamable HTTP transport.881MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for Bitrix integration, enabling OAuth 2.1 authorization and tool calls to retrieve Bitrix usernames.-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: bitrix-search is for general searching, while the other four tools each fetch details for a specific documentation type (app development, articles, events, methods). The descriptions explicitly differentiate them by doc_type and output format, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to use for a given task.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'bitrix-' prefix, followed by a descriptive noun or noun phrase (e.g., 'search', 'method-details'), and ending with '-details' for the four detail-fetching tools. This verb_noun-like structure is uniform throughout the set, making it predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a documentation server focused on Bitrix24. It includes a search tool and four detail tools covering key documentation types, which is efficient and avoids bloat. Each tool serves a clear, necessary function without redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is complete for the domain of fetching Bitrix24 documentation. It covers the full workflow: searching across all doc types with bitrix-search, then retrieving detailed information for each specific type (app development, articles, events, methods). There are no obvious gaps, as agents can seamlessly move from search to details without dead ends.